With so many technology stacks, why did Robinhood choose Arbitrum to launch its blockchain?

2025/07/01 12:00

Author:Haotian

A brief explanation of the news about @RobinhoodApp’s plan to build layer2 on Arbitrum:

1) From a technical perspective, Robinhood’s choice to support Arbitrum’s Nitro is no different from Coinbase’s choice to support Optimism’s OP Stack technology stack. However, Base’s performance has proven a rule: the success of a technology stack does not equal the success of the parent chain.

The rise of Base is more the result of Coinbase's brand effect + compliance resources + user diversion, and to some extent it also provides certain guidance for Robinhood's residence in Arbitrum.

This means that in the short term, it cannot be proved that the price of $ARB is undervalued (compare it with the performance of $OP), but in the long term, once the "U.S. stock chain" scenario that Robinhood is targeting is successful, it may change the embarrassing situation of layer2 as an expansion solution of Ethereum layer1, which has "technology but no implementation", and will open up an unprecedented Mass Adoption path for both L1+L2 of the Ethereum ecosystem.

2) Coinbase’s layer2 solution is more of a general layer2 solution, mainly following the past transaction-oriented scenarios such as DeFi, GameFi, and MEME. However, Robinhood may be different this time and will go in the direction of professional layer2, specifically customizing a set of on-chain infrastructure that matches the traditional financial chain?

Although the transaction confirmation time of OP-Rollup can also be achieved in sub-seconds, the security of such transactions is still within the scope of the optimistic Rollup with 7-day fraud verification. Robinhood’s new layer2 needs to handle features such as T+0 stock settlement, real-time risk control, and compliance requirements. It may require deep customization of the layer2 virtual machine level, consensus mechanism, and data structure to fully squeeze the potential of the Layer2 expansion solution.

3) Arbitrum's technical solution is more mature than Optmism: Nitro's WASM architecture has higher execution efficiency and has a natural advantage in processing complex financial calculations; Stylus supports multi-language development of high-performance contracts and can carry some heavy computing tasks in traditional finance; BoLD solves malicious delay attacks and consolidates the security of optimistic verification; Orbit supports customized Layer3 deployment and provides sufficient flexibility in development features.

You see, there must be a reason why Arbitrum was chosen. Its technical advantages seem to meet the stringent "customization" requirements of traditional finance for infrastructure, unlike OP Stack, which only needs to run. This is also very Make Sense. After all, in the face of the ultimate challenge of carrying trillion-level TradFi business, the maturity and specialization of technology will determine success or failure.

4) The listing of U.S. stocks on the blockchain and the coin-to-stock exchanges are no longer the "coin issuance narrative and game" commonly used in the traditional cryptocurrency circle. They are facing not only "speculative users" who are just speculating on cryptocurrencies without caring whether the project products are delivered or whether the experience is smooth. Once the network has gas fluctuations and causes congestion, and there are transaction delays, etc., it is absolutely intolerable for users who are familiar with the traditional financial product line.

These traditional financial users are familiar with millisecond-level responses, 24/7 uninterrupted services, and T+0 seamless settlement. More importantly, they are often backed by institutional funds, algorithmic trading, and high-frequency strategies, which have abnormal requirements for system stability and performance. This means that the user groups that Robinhood layer2 will serve will be completely different, and the challenges are very arduous.

above.

In short, Robinhood's layout of layer 2 will be of great significance. It is no longer as simple as adding a new player to the layer 2 technology stack, but a hard-core experiment to verify whether the Crypto infrastructure can undertake the core business of the modern financial system.

Once the experiment is successful, the digital reconstruction of the entire trillion-level TradFi market, including bonds, futures, insurance, and real estate, will be accelerated. Of course, in the long run, it will have a direct benefit to the application scenarios of the entire Ethereum L1+L2 ecological technology facilities, and will also redefine the value capture logic of Layer2.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Bitcoin Mining Goes Institutional – But Can It Survive Tariffs, AI Grid Wars, and Fee Collapse?

Bitcoin Mining Goes Institutional – But Can It Survive Tariffs, AI Grid Wars, and Fee Collapse?

In 2025, Bitcoin mining is no longer just a competition over hashpower and block rewards—it has evolved into a full-scale infrastructure war, where access to energy, geopolitical positioning, and integration with emerging technologies like AI define who survives and who fades out. According to the newly released Bitcoin Mining Market Review and Key Trends authored by Nico Smid, research analyst at GoMining Institutional, and Fakhul Miah, managing director at GoMining Institutional, the industry now finds itself locked in a struggle with one of the world’s fastest-growing tech verticals: artificial intelligence. AI hyperscalers are demanding huge amounts of electricity for model training and deployment, putting them on a direct collision course with Bitcoin miners, who also rely on affordable, high-volume power to remain profitable. This competition has triggered what the report calls a “power crunch,” forcing mining companies to rethink site selection, energy procurement, and geopolitical risk in real time. The competition for electricity is no longer limited to internal mining rivalries—it has gone external. Major players like Riot Platforms have paused a 600 MW expansion, while Iris Energy has shifted away from pure BTC mining to allocate capacity toward AI cloud services. On February 13, Riot Platforms also anno unced that it is actively pursuing potential partnerships within the AI and HPC sectors. 💡 Bitcoin miner @RiotPlatforms eyes AI and HPC as Bitcoin transactions slump. #Bitcoin #AI #Mining https://t.co/9lab9MJy32 — Cryptonews.com (@cryptonews) February 13, 2025 As nations attempt to balance power grids and prioritize forward-looking technologies, miners are being priced out, regulated against, or simply pushed aside, claims the report. Institutional Capital Pours in, but Miners Are Squeezed The report notes that this crunch comes at a time when institutional demand for Bitcoin has never been higher. Wall Street has poured billions into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs , and the U.S. government has officially recognized the asset by forming a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The result is a paradox: demand for Bitcoin is soaring, but the supply-side infrastructure—mining—is becoming more fragile. While capital floods into ETFs, miners face rising operating costs, compressed fees, and restricted energy access. Hash price has declined sharply post-halving, and transaction fee revenue has collapsed to less than 1% of miner income. Even as Bitcoin becomes more embedded in institutional portfolios and public balance sheets, the ability to mint new coins is under siege. This growing disconnect between Bitcoin’s financialization and the economic sustainability of mining is one of the report’s core warnings. Miners Turn to Financial Engineering to Survive To survive this high-cost, post-halving environment, miners are evolving into financial tacticians. No longer just hardware operators, leading firms are now using Bitcoin-backed loans, convertible notes, and creative equity structures to raise capital without liquidating their BTC reserves. The report identifies this trend as “the rise of the financially engineered miner,” where the ability to model capital stack scenarios is as important as mining efficiency. The shift marks a turning point in how mining companies operate. Access to energy is still paramount, but access to capital markets—and the sophistication to operate within them—is now equally essential. As mining companies adapt to lower margins and greater volatility, their financial survival may hinge on how well they can balance debt, equity, and retained BTC while preparing for further pressure from AI, regulation, and tariffs. Legacy Hardware Feels the Pain The report also shines a light on the economic pressure facing legacy ASIC hardware. The S19 generation of miners, which still accounts for roughly 25% of Bitcoin’s total hashrate, is fast approaching obsolescence. Profitability data shows that S19 units operating at electricity costs above $0.06/kWh are already unprofitable unless the hash price exceeds $60—a rarity in 2025. For operators paying more than $0.05/kWh, even slight hash price drops can push them into the red. While the S19 has been a workhorse since its release five years ago, it is now a liability for many mining farms. The narrowing profit margins are an indicator of how quickly economic viability can shift, particularly in an industry facing both internal halving events and external competition from AI infrastructure players, GoMining Institutional reports. Outlook: More Than Just Block Rewards The report concludes that the first half of 2025 has revealed that Bitcoin mining is no longer a closed system. It’s now a frontline industry operating at the intersection of capital, energy, and compute. As the network seeks equilibrium after April’s halving, miners must make tough decisions about scale, strategy, and survival. The second half of the year promises no less intensity—but the winners will be those who can work within capital markets as well as they can manage hashpower.
Share
CryptoNews2025/08/01 00:52