This is definitely a great case study for the crypto value accrual debate. I personally draw the opposite conclusion from the numbers. Robinhood was not locked into Ethereum. They could have spun up their own L1, or gone with a cheaper DA layer and paid Ethereum next to nothing. Near-free settlement was likely part of why Ethereum won the deal in the first place. Blockchains are still early in adoption, and right now the priority is onboarding apps, users, assets and liquidity until the network effects are real and sticky. Once Robinhood has years of state, tooling and liquidity sitting on Ethereum, the latter gains some pricing power. Raising prices before that stickiness exists risks having the next Robinhood build somewhere else, or driving Robinhood itself away. The other thing is that fee capture arguably can't carry ETH's valuation anyway. ETH trades at around a $230B market cap, more or less McDonald's, and McDonald's earned $8.6B last year. The entire L2 sector paid Ethereum about $10M for settlement in 2025. Even a 75/10/15 split takes Ethereum's lifetime cut of Robinhood Chain from $1,538 to roughly $120K. You'd need thousands of Robinhood Chains to move the needle. At a generous 30x, $230B implies about $7.5B a year in earnings, hundreds of times what L2s pay today. Bitcoin meanwhile sits around $1.3T with zero cash flow. ETH's current valuation only makes sense as money/store of value. The shorter path to justifying a higher valuation is competing with Bitcoin for primacy in that role. Charging L2s more won't move a $230B valuation, and it could cost Ethereum the next Robinhood.