Why launch on @arbitrum as an L2 instead of building your own chain? This is a very apt topic corresponding to how Robinhood Chain as performed since its launch. @RobinhoodCrypto had every reason to go the other way with its audience and credentials. Owning an L1 means owning consensus. > Recruiting validators, subsidising them through token issuance or fiat handouts, and carrying that cost whether ten people use the chain or ten million. > By late 2025, the annual security budget across Bitcoin, Solana and Ethereum combined ran into the billions, a cost that most builders would not want to foot. An L2 skips that bill. > Robinhood Chain settles to Ethereum's validator set, close to a million validators securing $78 billion in staked ETH, and pays for that security only through the fees it generates. > No token to bootstrap, no subsidy to keep the lights on, which is why $ARB's own L2s report 90 to 98 percent operating margins. The receipt makes the point better than the theory. One tally circulating puts Robinhood Chain's revenue since launch at roughly $816K. By share, Robinhood keeps 89%, Arbitrum 10%, Ethereum 0.15%. If you've read that as Ethereum leaving money on the table and you've missed why Robinhood is here at all. Near-cost settlement with no landlord taking equity in the business built on top is the actual pitch. Every company that says "we need our own chain" is usually asking for control over fees, sequencing and compliance, not consensus. Ethereum's underpricing is precisely what made the deal make sense, not just for Robinhood, but for more chains to build their L2 on (with unique propositions).