I don't understand the people rooting for Robinhood Chain to die. It's the best chance we have at getting back the volume we had on Solana in 2025. I don't think the recent decline is all on the Robinhood team, but they could have done better. So here's what I think went wrong and how they could win back their market share, because we should all want Robinhood Chain to come back. Distribution was the whole point A lot of Robinhood Chain's success came from the hope of distribution to the 25M customers on the main app. That's what brought the volume in the first place: the dream of reaching buyers outside our CT echo chamber. Listing $CASHCAT in the main app accelerated that. Today over 20% of its supply sits in Robinhood wallets. That tells us, and the team, that app customers really do want onchain tokens. We expected it to continue. Robinhood would help push tokens past their usual ceilings by putting them in front of a far bigger customer base, like they did with $CASHCAT. That didn't happen. $PONS ran to almost a billion dollars and Robinhood did nothing. Coinbase listed $PONS before Robinhood did, and Binance listed $AI before Robinhood did. Distribution is why these coins went so high in the first place, and after $CASHCAT we got no help. The chain needs leaders A chain is a living ecosystem. It needs leaders who give it direction and bring it to life. Vlad and the team were very active in the first 60 days, and that's why everyone traded there. As the summit got closer, the team went quiet and focused on other things. That's when we started to dump. It began to feel like Base, where the founder is out of touch with the trenches and slow to react. Then the summit itself gave a lot of people hope for a roadmap, or anything that pointed the chain in a direction. We got nothing. The chain wasn't mentioned once. Chain TVL is at an all time high, because RWA tokenization works. That doesn't mean anything else works. Builder support is missing too. The Robinhood account has recently interacted with some projects on the chain, which is good. But formal support would help aspiring builders a lot: grants, hackathons, audit help, market making and incentives. It can still be saved All of this makes it sound like the chain didn't work out. It can still be saved if they act now. 1. Engage with the chain. We need a founder who's in touch with the ecosystem and engages with the cool stuff being built. 2. List more onchain tokens than $CASHCAT. The goal shouldn't be to kingmake one token. It should be to support the whole ecosystem by showing that any token can make it into the main app if it builds something good or gets enough attention. That's what keeps traders on the chain. 3. A formal builder support. If that means growing the team and bringing in more onchain natives to help the chain grow, make it the priority. Put a hackathon, grants and general help on the roadmap. Nobody expected the chain to grow the way it did. Now it's time to adapt to the growth. You still have the chance to revive the trenches here. @vladtenev @JohannKerbrat @fern

Another Sunday, another call for the end of the trenches. I have to say that the conditions aren't favorable atm and I also spend a lot less time looking at tokens. It feels like the war is over and the last remaining soldiers are just competing for nothing. But that doesn't mean its totally over and we will never come back. Many of you haven't been around for years but I can tell you, every time coins die and volume declines the sentiment is worse. People will eventually get tired of 2 months cycles of good conditions followed by another dead 6 months. Especially because it looked like the more cycles pass the less volume we get. As you can see in the visuals the recent Robinhood season had 3x more volume than all the last "high volume" metas. This doesn't necessarily implies that the ceilings of tokens were 3x higher. They weren't and the main cause of this is that capital is spread between 50 runners instead of a handful of good tokens that reach billions. In conditions like this your job is to identify the issues we have and find the projects building a solution for that. These could be the ones leading us to a new meta. If this tells us one thing its that no matter how bad the volume is you shouldn't give up. Your sizing, risk tolerance and screen time should change but you have to stay up to date no matter what. The people that capitalized the most of every single meta in the visual were the people that stayed during the quite times and caught the move early. I didn't buy CASHCAT, AI and PONS at 1-3M because I came once the volume increased. I bought them because I was active when nobody was. Stay active, sharpen your edge and dump on the people that come back when euphoria hits.

Does capital actually rotate back to Solana? On volume it looks like it does. On fees it mostly doesn't. Last week Solana did $21.2bn in DEX volume and Robinhood Chain did $10.6bn. Solana's share went from 57% to 67% in one week. Solana gained $3.1bn of volume. Robinhood lost $2.9bn. Almost dollar for dollar. Robinhood's drop was mostly Uniswap, down $2.7bn, which is cheap RWA and stablecoin flow. Solana's gain was mostly prop AMMs and Orca, trading SOL and stables. That's mainly bot and market-maker volume. Fees tell the other half. Robinhood lost $30.5mm in the last 7 days. Solana gained $4.9mm. The fees came from Pons. At 1% per trade, Pons fees halved from $39.2mm to $19.0mm. Pump and Stonk added $0.9bn of volume, nowhere near enough to replace that. This shows that there was no big rotation to Solana. It was a decrease in trading activity entirely.

There are no research firms covering data trenchers actually care about. Everything published is aimed at funds. majors, unlocks and protocol revenue won't move a low cap trade. That's why we founded @sparsitydata. We cover the other side. daily wallet flows, holder strength, attention and much more. Everything that helps you navigate the trenches

"Fartcoin of this cycle" But are these comparisons to memes from last cycle accurate? The current combined market cap of all RWA related tokens is 1/12 of the combined meme market cap of last cycle. $808M today vs $10B last cycle. In the graphs below you can see where the current market sits in comparison to last cycle. Understand where we are Understand where we are headed

There is a reason why coins launched on LONG do better than on PONS. It's not about the narrative or traders but rather the mechanism itself. LONG launches coins through a dutch auction meaning everyone pays the same price pre-bond and snipers have no edge. PONS uses a normal bonding curve mechanism. This excludes the snipers and bundles to an extend which is healthy. LONG also routes a majority of fees collected from tokens directly into a vault that accumulates the underlying RWA. This vault is token-holder-governed meaning its up to the community what happens to the underlying RWAs. PONS uses fees to buyback its native token. To incentivize devs to launch on PONS they distribute a large amount of fees to the creator. On LONG you can launch normally and earn a slight percentage of the fee as creator or do it in community mode and route all fees to the vault. The supply of LONG coins is shrinking by system because the vault mechanically burns supply from fee revenue. The supply on PONS coins is fixed. Both launchpads have the option to launch tokens backed by RWAs. On PONS this pairing is a cosmetic because the token owns nothing. On LONG the tokens actually accumulate a share of the underlying RWA which creates vault NAV per token that acts as the floor. LONG also grows the LP with the accumulated fees systematically. PONS doesn't. These launchpads serve different purposes. PONS brought an old system to a new chain. LONG came up with a concept to make coins stronger with every trade that is made.

There is a pattern in every single $100M runner on Robinhood. There is initial traction on the coin that pulls in a lot of capital from everywhere. Once that euphoria slows down it shakes all the short term buyers out. The flush from -60% to -95% migrates the supply to holders that won't sell and a "team" to pick up supply for another run. When new demand comes in, it hits a thin sell side with maybe a catalyst to accelerate. This is when it gets parabolic. Once you understand that this pattern repeats over and over again you can search for these spots. Robinhood is a holders chain. Not a flippers chain.