A British investor has recovered 61 bitcoin worth approximately £3.3 million, or about $4.5 million, more than 12 years after losing access to the cryptocurrency.

The investor originally spent around £1,500, then worth about $2,000, through the early U.K. exchange Britcoin in December 2011.

The investor, identified only as “Chris,” purchased bitcoin when it traded below $4, according to the law firm that handled the recovery. Britcoin later became Intersango, which stopped providing trading services before disappearing from the internet.

Chris said his holdings were worth about £4,000 when he lost access. He had a young family and a new home at the time, making the apparent loss particularly difficult.

“The worst thing was seeing Bitcoin grow and knowing what I could have done with the money,” Chris said in an account of the recovery.

Bitcoin ownership was proved with old banking records

CEL Solicitors said it recovered the assets after combining cryptocurrency tracing technology with documents showing that Chris had purchased the bitcoin. The firm publicly announced that the case was completed in about four months without law-enforcement intervention.

Ryan Sweetnam, director of financial litigation at CEL, said the evidence included banking documents dating back almost 15 years. Other useful records can include exchange emails, account-registration messages, deposit confirmations and customer-support correspondence.

Blockchain records can identify transactions between cryptocurrency addresses, but they do not contain customers’ legal names. A transaction showing bitcoin entering an exchange wallet does not by itself establish which customer owned the corresponding account balance.

Investigators therefore need to connect on-chain transfers with off-chain evidence. Bank statements may show payments to an exchange, while emails can establish the account holder’s identity and transaction history.

CEL has not disclosed all the documents used in Chris’s case. It also has not published a court judgment, settlement agreement or detailed tracing report. The result should therefore be presented as a recovery reported by the law firm rather than one independently confirmed through public court records.

The recovered amount was 61 BTC, according to the firm and subsequent reports. Its dollar value depends on bitcoin’s price. At $76,500 per coin, the holding would be worth approximately $4.67 million, while a slightly lower reference price produces the reported $4.5 million valuation.

Intersango shut down during Bitcoin’s early years

Britcoin was among the earliest platforms allowing customers to trade bitcoin against the British pound. It was later renamed Intersango and expanded its services while the cryptocurrency market remained small and lightly regulated.

Intersango announced that it would stop U.S. dollar trading in October 2012, according to a contemporary report. Its wider services later stopped, and the platform’s website was offline by early 2014.

The exchange operated before present-day cryptocurrency custody standards became common. Customers frequently left assets in exchange-controlled wallets without the detailed statements, segregated custody arrangements or recovery procedures expected from regulated financial firms.

This meant users depended on the exchange to maintain wallet access and accurate internal account records. When an early platform disappeared, customers could retain evidence that they had deposited money without possessing the private keys controlling the resulting bitcoin.

Chris’s case concerns custodial access rather than a forgotten personal seed phrase. He reportedly bought the bitcoin through an exchange and later lost access when the platform closed. The lawyers therefore had to establish an ownership claim instead of reconstructing a lost private key.

That distinction matters. No tracing company can derive a private key from a public Bitcoin address or reverse a properly confirmed transaction. Legal recovery generally requires access to a custodian, exchange account, identifiable counterparty or person controlling the relevant assets.

The case shares some features with other failed-exchange recoveries. Former Mt. Gox customers also had to prove account balances before receiving distributions. However, Mt. Gox repayments proceeded through a formal rehabilitation process involving a court-appointed trustee.

CEL has not identified an equivalent public insolvency process behind the Intersango recovery. The firm said it reclaimed the assets without law-enforcement involvement, but it has not disclosed who transferred the bitcoin or the legal mechanism used.

Another 5,500 BTC may be connected to Intersango

CEL Solicitors said its sister company, The Crypto Tracing Experts, identified a wallet containing more than 5,500 BTC that it believes is linked to former Intersango users.

At $76,500 per bitcoin, 5,500 BTC would be worth approximately $420.75 million. At higher market prices, the valuation could exceed $430 million.

That figure does not mean CEL has recovered a $421 million pool for distribution. It represents the balance of a wallet the firm says may contain bitcoin connected to former users.

The firm has not published the wallet address. Independent analysts therefore cannot confirm its current balance, examine its complete transaction history or verify the alleged connection to Intersango.

It is also unclear who controls the wallet’s private keys. Identifying an address through blockchain analysis does not provide the ability to transfer its funds.

CEL has not disclosed how many former Intersango users may hold valid claims. The total could also include assets belonging to exchange operators, customers who later withdrew their funds or parties unrelated to the platform’s unresolved balances.

Any former user seeking recovery would need to demonstrate individual ownership. Evidence that someone once opened an Intersango account would not be enough. The claimant would also need to show deposits, purchases and a balance that remained on the platform when access ended.

The age of the records could present the largest obstacle. Banks, email providers and customers may no longer retain documents from 2011 or 2012. Account holders may also have changed names, addresses or financial institutions.

The firm’s claim that other customers could recover funds remains untested publicly. The next reliable evidence would be another completed recovery, disclosure of the wallet address or publication of court documents supporting ownership and control.

The recovery shows why custody records matter

Bitcoin’s blockchain preserves transaction records indefinitely. Investigators can still examine transfers made more than a decade ago, even after the company operating the original exchange has disappeared.

However, blockchain transparency solves only part of the problem. A claimant still needs traditional documents connecting their identity to the relevant transactions and exchange account.

The case illustrates the difference between tracing and recovery. Tracing identifies where cryptocurrency moved. Recovery requires technical access, voluntary cooperation, a legal settlement, an insolvency distribution or an enforceable court order.

Investors should remain cautious when dealing with services promising to retrieve lost cryptocurrency. A legitimate investigator cannot guarantee the recovery of assets held in a wallet whose owner is unidentified or uncooperative.

Recovery firms also do not need a customer’s seed phrase to analyze public blockchain transactions. Requests for private keys or recovery phrases can expose users to further losses.

For current holdings, self-custody removes dependence on an exchange but makes the owner responsible for protecting the keys. Multisignature arrangements can reduce reliance on one credential by requiring several approvals, as explained in crypto.news’ guide to securing cryptocurrency with multisignature wallets.

Chris said he plans to use part of the recovered value to help his family, including buying a larger home and helping his son repay housing debt. He also intends to retain some bitcoin.

“I want to keep some Bitcoin to see if the value rises again,” he said. He added that price declines and theft remain concerns. Any future increase in value remains uncertain.

No formal deadline has been announced for former Intersango users to submit records. There is also no published distribution timetable for the 5,500 BTC that CEL says it traced.

For now, the completed 61 BTC recovery stands as evidence that some old custodial claims can be resolved when transaction data and ownership records survive. It does not establish that all former Intersango customers will recover their holdings.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin outlined a longer-term transaction model on Sept. 6 that could allow the network to process some validation work in parallel.

His proposal separates the effects produced by transactions from the conditions that must be satisfied before those effects can occur.

Buterin described the two components as “actions” and “dependencies” in a detailed post. Actions change Ethereum’s state, such as transferring ETH or calling a contract. Dependencies cover the information required to establish that a transaction is valid.

A digital signature is one example of a dependency. Other examples include Merkle proofs showing that an unspent output exists, zero-knowledge proofs and state conditions that must remain true when a transaction enters a block.

Buterin argued that making this distinction explicit could help Ethereum scale without abandoning its flexible execution environment. However, the proposal remains part of continuing protocol research. Ethereum developers have not approved the full design for deployment.

Ethereum could process transaction dependencies in parallel

Ethereum transactions currently combine authorization, fee payment and execution within a common processing flow. Nodes check whether a transaction is properly signed, whether the sender can pay for it and whether its instructions execute successfully.

Some of these checks do not depend on the transaction’s final state changes. Buterin said such dependencies could be processed separately and, in many cases, simultaneously.

For example, a validator may need to confirm a signature before accepting a transaction. That verification does not necessarily need to wait for unrelated signatures attached to other transactions. If multiple independent checks are known in advance, clients can distribute the work across available processing resources.

State-dependent checks require greater care. A condition tied to an account balance or storage slot may become invalid if an earlier transaction changes the same state. Buterin said mempools could reason about these conditions more effectively when transactions declare which parts of the state they access.

The approach would reward predictable transactions. Operations that specify their dependencies clearly could receive lower gas costs because clients could verify them more efficiently. Transactions requiring dynamic calls and unpredictable state access would remain possible but could cost more.

Buterin estimated that more than 90% of Ethereum activity by volume does not require the network’s full level of dynamic flexibility. That figure is his assessment rather than a published network measurement within the post. The broader argument is that common transfers and routine contract interactions could use more restrictive formats without limiting specialized applications.

The proposed model would preserve Ethereum’s flexible account system for transactions that need it. More predictable activity could use statically analyzable structures resembling parts of Bitcoin’s transaction model.

Bitcoin uses an unspent transaction output model in which a transaction identifies the outputs it intends to spend. Ethereum normally uses accounts with balances, nonces and programmable contract storage. Buterin is not proposing that Ethereum replace its account model with Bitcoin’s architecture. He described a spectrum combining ideas from both systems.

EIP-8141 provides a general transaction framework

EIP-8141 is a draft Ethereum Improvement Proposal for a new transaction type known as a Frame Transaction. It divides a transaction into contract-call frames that can validate authority, approve gas payment and perform user operations.

The official proposal says transaction validity and fee payment would no longer depend solely on a standard signature attached to the outer transaction. Account code could instead define the necessary authorization and payment rules.

Frame Transactions could support sponsored fees, payments in tokens other than ETH, key rotation and transaction batching. They could also allow externally owned accounts to receive account-abstraction features without relying on the same contract deployment across every compatible network.

Under the proposed structure, verification frames would determine whether the sender authorized the transaction. Separate frames could establish who pays the fees and then execute the requested operations.

This structure aligns with Buterin’s division between dependencies and actions. Verification frames handle conditions that must be satisfied. Sender frames handle the operations that alter state.

The format could also improve interoperability between Ethereum Virtual Machine networks. Different chains could support the same minimal transaction structure while applying their own verification tools, precompiles or account features.

Buterin described the potential format as a basic list of calls with flags identifying their function. A call could be marked as a pure dependency, a state-dependent verification or an action. The transaction would also contain standard information such as its origin and nonce.

EIP-8141 remains classified as a draft Core proposal. Its current specification includes detailed rules for mempool admission, frame execution, receipts, signatures, gas accounting and transaction propagation. Those details can change during review.

Ethereum developers have also debated technical concerns. These include denial-of-service risks, transaction replacement rules, tooling changes, pending-transaction limits and restrictions placed on verification frames.

One discussion noted that the proposed public mempool would normally keep only one pending Frame Transaction for each sender. Developers have questioned how that rule would affect accounts that regularly submit several transactions within one block.

Other participants have examined whether the format introduces additional complexity for wallets, block builders and Ethereum’s remote procedure call interfaces. These questions must be resolved before client teams can implement a stable specification.

Recursive STARKs could remove repeated verification

Buterin’s longer-term model goes beyond EIP-8141. He suggested that dependencies requiring no state access could be checked once at the mempool layer instead of being repeated by every validator.

A pure dependency might include a cryptographic signature or proof whose validity does not change with Ethereum’s state. After checking it, the network could replace multiple pieces of verification work with a recursive STARK confirming that all checks were completed correctly.

A STARK is a cryptographic proof that allows one party to demonstrate that a computation was performed correctly. Recursive proofs can verify other proofs, making it possible to combine many checks into a smaller verification task.

The proposed mempool could aggregate transaction signatures, validity proofs and other dependencies before block execution. Validators would then verify the aggregated proof instead of independently repeating each original computation.

Buterin suggested that this approach might also reduce the amount of verification data placed on-chain. If the recursive proof establishes that all dependencies were valid, some of the original data could potentially be omitted.

That outcome is not part of the current EIP-8141 specification. It would require additional research covering proof generation, mempool coordination, data availability and protections against invalid aggregation.

The design also relates to Ethereum’s preparation for post-quantum cryptography. Quantum-resistant signatures are generally larger and more expensive to verify than the ECDSA signatures used by ordinary Ethereum accounts.

EIP-8141 could allow accounts to define new authorization schemes without waiting for Ethereum to replace a single fixed signature standard. Recursive proof aggregation could then reduce the cost of verifying large post-quantum signatures.

EIP-8141 could help Ethereum accounts adopt post-quantum authorization if practical signature systems become available. That remains a longer-term security path rather than an immediate response to an active quantum threat.

Keyed nonces could remove transaction bottlenecks

Ethereum accounts use sequential nonces to prevent transaction replay. If an account submits transactions numbered 10, 11 and 12, the network normally processes them in that order.

The sequence can create a bottleneck. If transaction 10 becomes stuck or invalid, later transactions from the same account may also wait, even when their operations are unrelated.

Keyed nonces would give an account several independent nonce sequences. Transactions assigned to different keys could proceed without waiting for another sequence to advance.

This could help smart accounts, privacy systems and applications that submit several independent operations simultaneously. Each workflow could receive its own nonce domain while retaining replay protection.

Crypto.news previously reported that keyed nonces could prevent independent private transactions from blocking each other. The feature is part of a broader effort to improve privacy transactions, flexible accounts and censorship resistance.

Buterin also connected the transaction work with alternative state models, including native UTXO designs and proof-based state structures. These projects explore whether some assets or operations can use predictable state rules while complex contracts retain Ethereum’s existing flexibility.

The approach could create several processing levels. Simple, declared operations would be easier to analyze and could receive lower fees. Dynamic contract calls would continue to work but would consume more resources because clients cannot prepare their execution in the same way.

Such differentiated pricing would attempt to align fees with the actual scaling constraints created by each transaction. It would not guarantee lower fees for every user or application.

EIP-8141 still requires developer approval and testing

EIP-8141 must pass several stages before it can affect Ethereum users. Core developers first need to agree that Frame Transactions offer a better path than competing account-abstraction designs.

The proposal would then require client implementations, development networks, interoperability testing, wallet support and security review. Developers would also need to test how Frame Transactions interact with block builders, mempools, fee markets and existing smart contracts.

Earlier developer discussions considered EIP-8141 for Ethereum’s future Hegotá upgrade. However, crypto.news reported that Frame Transactions remained under consideration rather than formally scheduled.

FOCIL, a separate proposal intended to improve censorship resistance through transaction inclusion lists, has also been discussed alongside EIP-8141. The two proposals address different problems. Frame Transactions concern authorization and execution structure, while FOCIL concerns the inclusion of eligible transactions in blocks.

Developers have argued that using them together could provide native account abstraction with stronger censorship resistance. That combination is still a proposed package, not an approved Ethereum roadmap commitment.

Buterin’s Sept. 6 comments therefore describe a possible direction for Ethereum transaction design. They do not announce a completed upgrade, activation date or confirmed change to mainnet gas fees.

The next verifiable milestones would be formal developer support, inclusion in an upgrade scope and working implementations on development networks. Until then, EIP-8141 and recursive STARK mempools remain active research and engineering proposals.

FAQs

Orionx, a Chile-based cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after a forensic review flagged a multimillion-dollar custody discrepancy, according to statements shared by the company on X. The exchange said it is moving into a permanent closure process and has temporarily suspended withdrawals as it works to return client funds.

Orionx said the audit identified more than $7 million in assets recorded in its custodial records that had been transferred to wallets it does not manage. The announcement arrives against a broader backdrop of increased scrutiny around custody controls and regulatory compliance for crypto firms operating in Latin America.

Key takeaways

• Orionx is initiating a permanent shutdown after a forensic audit found a custody mismatch involving more than $7 million.
• The exchange says withdrawals are temporarily suspended while it prioritizes returning client assets.
• Orionx has not disclosed when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint alleges outflows from custody between 2018 and 2021.
• Former co-founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz deny allegations tied to unauthorized access to custody systems.
• Tether led Orionx’s Series A in 2025 as part of an expansion push, with the funding announcement later removed from Tether’s website.

A forensic finding triggers a withdrawal pause

Orionx announced that it began the process of permanently closing the platform after uncovering what it described as evidence of a custody-related issue. In its X post, the exchange said withdrawals have been paused in the interim while it attempts to return as much as possible to clients.

At the center of Orionx’s case is the discrepancy identified between the balances shown in its systems and the assets it holds at its custody addresses. Orionx attributed the issue to more than $7 million in custodial assets having moved to wallets the exchange does not manage, according to the company announcement.

While Orionx said it commissioned a forensic audit that compared internal records with verifiable on-chain data, the exchange did not specify in its post when the transfers took place or how the mismatch was first detected. That timing detail is important for investors and users trying to understand exposure windows, but the available reporting points to a longer period of alleged activity.

Timeline and alleged custody gaps cited in a Chilean complaint

According to reporting by Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Orionx undertook internal efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, conducting a review of its operations in 2025 and bringing in financial professionals. The publication tied Orionx’s actions to a criminal complaint involving former executives.

Reportedly, on Aug. 27, Orionx’s chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan noticed a “significant mismatch” between the balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and what was actually held in custody, as described in the complaint. Orionx then ran an internal review and later commissioned an external forensic audit that matched its records with data that can be checked on-chain.

The forensic audit findings, as described through the complaint and reported by La Tercera, indicate that balances tracked within Orionx’s systems were higher than the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). That kind of gap can be especially consequential for users because it suggests the platform’s accounting and custody reality did not align across multiple major assets.

La Tercera further reports that the complaint alleges assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts hosted on other crypto platforms. Although the exchange’s public announcement did not spell out the period, the complaint points to a multi-year span, which could influence how authorities and affected customers evaluate responsibility and timing.

Criminal complaint targets former co-founders; denials follow

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz—both co-founders—whom it alleges had access to the company’s crypto custody systems. In the complaint as reported by La Tercera, an account associated with Díaz allegedly received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. The report also cites allegations that another wallet received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.

Zibert and Díaz denied wrongdoing, according to La Cuarta. They said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.

For Orionx customers, the competing narratives—Orionx’s custody-mismatch claims versus the co-founders’ denials—are likely to shape what happens next. But the practical impact is immediate: Orionx is prioritizing asset recovery efforts while keeping withdrawals suspended, meaning users cannot rely on normal exchange liquidity during the shutdown process.

Tether’s 2025 backing and the question of what changed

Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform that offered crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.

In June 2025, Tether invested in Orionx, exclusively leading Orionx’s Series A round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. That announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website, but the archived copy attributes the investment to Tether’s stated aim of expanding digital-asset adoption across Latin America.

Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication. The episode raises an investor question that often comes up in crypto custody failures: even when an exchange secures prominent strategic backing, custody controls and operational integrity still require continuous verification, particularly as regulatory expectations rise.

What remains uncertain is how the alleged custody shortfall ties to Orionx’s later operations and compliance efforts. The complaint reporting points to transfers between 2018 and 2021, while Orionx’s public review and forensic steps occurred later. Until more details emerge from the criminal process and the ongoing closure and restitution efforts, the exact mechanics of the gap—along with the responsibility chain—may remain disputed.

Over the coming weeks, clients and observers will likely watch for updates on whether Orionx can identify and recover missing assets from the wallets it says it does not control, as well as what authorities uncover regarding access, internal controls, and the alleged timeline of transfers.

Orionx, a Chilean crypto exchange backed by USDt stablecoin issuer Tether, is shutting down after uncovering a multimillion-dollar issue linked to asset custody.

The exchange said it began a permanent closure process after a forensic audit found more than $7 million in custodial assets had moved to wallets it did not manage, according to a company announcement shared on X on Thursday.

“Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” Orionx said, adding that withdrawals are temporarily suspended.

The closure comes just 15 months after Tether led Orionx’s Series A as part of its push to expand digital asset adoption in Latin America.

Orionx leaves timing of $7 million transfers unclear

Orionx’s post did not specify when the more than $7 million in transfers occurred or how the discrepancy was initially uncovered.

As part of its efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, Orionx conducted a review of its operations in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, according to the major Chilean newspaper La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.

On Aug. 27, chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan detected a “significant mismatch” between balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and assets actually held in custody, according to the complaint.

Related: BitMEX co-founder contributed 75% of Reform UK’s donations in Q2 2026

An internal review followed, and Orionx later commissioned an external forensic audit that compared its records with data verifiable onchain. The audit found that balances recorded in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP and Polygon (POL).

The criminal complaint reportedly alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms.

Orionx accuses co-founders, who deny wrongdoing

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both co-founders who allegedly had access to the company’s crypto custody systems.

The complaint alleges that an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers, while another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT) and 200,000 USDC from Orionx, La Tercera reported.

Former executive and Orionx co-founder Roberto Zibert. Source: LinkedIn

Zibert and Díaz denied the allegations, saying they never acted against customers’ interests and that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.

Tether backed Orionx in 2025

Founded in Chile in 2017, Orionx grew from a retail crypto exchange into a platform offering crypto payment and financial services in Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico.

Tether invested in Orionx in June 2025, exclusively leading the exchange’s Series A funding round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. The announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website.

Cointelegraph contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication.

Magazine: Tether sued over $42M in frozen coins, 6,600 students get crypto loans: Asia Express

Federal Reserve researchers proposed a framework on Sept. 4 for deciding how stablecoins and other blockchain-based financial products could fit within U.S. money supply statistics.

Payment stablecoins are not currently included in M1 or M2, but their future classification could depend on how households and businesses use them.

The authors, Kristen Payne and Mary-Frances Styczynski, examined payment stablecoins, tokenized bank deposits and tokenized money market funds in a Federal Reserve study. They considered both the economic function of each asset and whether reliable data could be collected without counting the same money twice.

The authors stressed that the paper reflects their personal views. It does not represent a Federal Reserve policy decision or an active deliberation over changing the monetary aggregates.

LeBron James teased an upcoming partnership with Polymarket on Sept. 5, placing the NBA star alongside a growing group of athletes and professional leagues working with prediction-market companies.

James shared a 14-second video showing him entering a fictional Polymarket headquarters and selecting a floor marked for sports. “Welcome to Polymarket HQ. Coming soon,” he wrote.

The post confirms that a partnership exists but provides no details about James’s role. Neither James nor Polymarket has disclosed the duration, compensation, ownership terms or specific promotional commitments.

CNBC reported that the companies are preparing a larger marketing campaign focused initially on American football. The outlet cited one person familiar with the plans who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The campaign is therefore not confirmed as rugby-related. The available report specifically identifies American football, while James’s public teaser refers only to Polymarket’s broader sports business.

Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder and Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko exchanged competing views on Sept. 6 over why Robinhood built its blockchain using Arbitrum technology instead of operating applications directly on Solana.

Goldfeder argued that Robinhood can retain roughly 90% of its chain revenue under the Arbitrum Expansion Program. A Solana-based application would pay network fees without receiving the underlying chain’s revenue, he said.

“Robinhood chose Arbitrum so they could be a landlord and not a tenant,” Goldfeder wrote. His comment responded to Yakovenko’s position that Robinhood could subsidize Solana transaction fees while charging users through its own application.

The debate followed a sharp rise in Robinhood Chain activity. The network recently collected $6.04 million in daily transaction fees and retained about $5.44 million after expenses and its Arbitrum revenue-sharing obligation.

Robinhood keeps 90% of net revenue, not gross fees

Goldfeder’s 90% figure reflects the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s share of net protocol revenue. It should not be interpreted as Robinhood automatically retaining 90% of every gross fee paid by users.

Under the program, Robinhood Chain sends 10% of its net protocol revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Eight percentage points go to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, while two percentage points fund the Arbitrum Developer Guild.

Net revenue is calculated after relevant network expenses, including the cost of posting transaction data to Ethereum. Robinhood’s actual retained amount therefore depends on gross transaction fees, Ethereum data costs, infrastructure expenses and the Arbitrum payment.

The arrangement has already produced measurable results. Robinhood Chain collected a record $6.04 million in transaction fees during its latest 24-hour reporting period and retained approximately $5.44 million. The figures show the network keeping about 90% after associated costs and allocations.

The network also generated $20.33 million in revenue over seven days. Maintaining that rate for a full year would produce approximately $1.06 billion, but such annualization is only a projection based on a brief period of unusually high activity.

The latest Robinhood Chain fee record followed rapid growth in memecoin trading, token launches and decentralized exchange volume. GMGN, Pons and Uniswap accounted for much of the application activity.

Yakovenko says applications can collect fees on Solana

Yakovenko’s argument focuses on the application layer. Robinhood could deploy its services on Solana, subsidize transaction costs and charge customers through its interface, avoiding the expense of operating a separate Layer 2 network.

This approach could work for transactions initiated through Robinhood’s application. Brokerages can charge commissions, spreads, subscription fees or service fees without controlling the blockchain underneath their products.

Goldfeder countered that this model would not capture value from activity occurring outside Robinhood’s interface. Third-party wallets, trading bots, decentralized exchanges and token launchpads can interact directly with blockchain contracts.

Robinhood would pay to subsidize transactions initiated by its customers on Solana but would receive none of the network fees produced by independent users. Solana validators and stakers would receive those fees instead.

On Robinhood Chain, the company operates the network’s sequencing infrastructure. This allows it to collect transaction fees from activity across the chain, including transactions that bypass Robinhood’s front end.

Recent data supports Goldfeder’s point about outside activity. Memecoin launchpad Pons and trading platform GMGN have become large contributors to Robinhood Chain’s traffic. Many transactions generated by those applications do not originate through Robinhood’s brokerage interface.

The economic distinction is therefore broader than the cost of individual transactions. Yakovenko’s model lets Robinhood monetize its customers at the application level. Goldfeder’s model lets Robinhood capture revenue generated across an entire network.

Robinhood Chain still pays Ethereum and Arbitrum

Robinhood does not retain all the value generated by its blockchain. Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum Layer 2 built using Arbitrum Orbit, rather than an independent Layer 1.

The network uses ETH as its native gas token and posts transaction data to Ethereum using blobs, according to Robinhood’s documentation. Each transaction includes an execution component and a data-availability component.

The L2 execution fee covers computation performed on Robinhood Chain. The L1 data fee pays for publishing transaction information to Ethereum. Both components are bundled into the amount presented to users.

Robinhood also pays the Arbitrum ecosystem’s 10% share of net protocol revenue. Consequently, the “landlord” description refers to Robinhood’s control over its own chain and sequencer, not complete independence from outside infrastructure.

As an earlier examination of the revenue-sharing arrangement reported, Robinhood received a branded network, EVM compatibility, existing Ethereum tools and technical support in exchange for part of its net revenue.

Building a new Layer 1 could theoretically allow Robinhood to retain more revenue. It would also require the company to develop and maintain its own execution, consensus, bridging and security infrastructure.

Using Solana would remove the need to operate those components. However, Robinhood would become an application on infrastructure it did not control and would not collect the network’s transaction fees.

Gas subsidies complicate the revenue comparison

Robinhood launched its chain with a 90-day gas subsidy for transactions conducted through Robinhood Wallet. The subsidy is scheduled to expire on Sept. 29.

The promotion means eligible wallet users do not directly pay gas during the subsidy period. Robinhood covers those costs. However, the subsidy does not necessarily cover every transaction conducted by independent applications and wallets across the network.

That distinction is central to the founders’ debate. Goldfeder argued that much of Robinhood Chain’s activity now occurs beyond the Robinhood front end. The company can collect fees from those transactions because it operates the underlying chain.

Robinhood Chain’s activity increased rapidly during the subsidy. Its daily decentralized exchange volume recently reached approximately $1.71 billion, while total value locked in native protocols stood near $1.17 billion.

The network has also exceeded Solana in daily chain revenue during some reporting periods. However, direct comparisons require caution because the networks have different cost structures, subsidies, fee markets and validator arrangements.

The Robinhood Chain and Solana comparison identified the subsidy’s expiration as a major test. User activity could fall when customers begin paying gas, or Robinhood could extend or restructure the program.

The fee debate will become clearer after Sept. 29

The first major test arrives when the gas subsidy expires. Post-subsidy data will show how many Robinhood Wallet users continue transacting when they must pay their own network costs.

It will also show whether independent activity from Pons, GMGN, Uniswap and other applications remains strong. These applications have contributed heavily to the network’s recent fee growth.

A detailed onchain investigation by Bitquery found that Robinhood Chain’s gas price increased roughly 25-fold within 11 days. The report attributed much of the additional demand to a limited group of heavily active wallets.

The concentration creates uncertainty over whether current fee revenue is sustainable. A decline in activity from several large addresses could reduce transaction fees even if total user numbers continue rising.

Robinhood has not publicly announced whether it will extend the subsidy beyond Sept. 29. It also has not disclosed how network revenue will appear in its financial reporting.

There was no verified movement in HOOD, SOL, ETH or ARB directly attributable to the founders’ exchange. Linking broader market fluctuations to their comments without additional evidence would be speculative.

The commercial question will remain whether owning a Layer 2 produces more value than deploying an application on an existing Layer 1. Robinhood Chain’s first unsubsidized operating period will provide the clearest evidence.