Starknet lending protocol Vesu has reported that a faulty Pragma price feed triggered the abnormal liquidation of 47 positions holding $3 million in collateral on Sept. 4.

Vesu traces $3M liquidation to Pragma price feed

Vesu said in a Sept. 5 incident disclosure that the liquidations occurred between 04:08 and 04:10 UTC on Sept. 4 after an upstream price source operated by Pragma supplied incorrect data.

During the two-minute incident, the faulty prices reached several Vesu liquidity pools and made 47 borrowing positions appear eligible for liquidation. Automated liquidators then removed approximately $3 million in collateral before the feed returned to the correct value.

According to the protocol, the price source corrected itself within two minutes and has operated normally since then. Vesu did not identify the affected assets or provide a pool-by-pool breakdown in its initial statement.

The company also did not disclose how far the incorrect prices differed from market rates, the amount of debt attached to the liquidated positions, or how much collateral liquidators retained. A technical report covering the incident is expected to provide more information about the affected markets and the sequence of on-chain transactions.

Pragma has since worked with the relevant organizations to deploy a fix addressing the source of the error, Vesu said. Liquidity pool curators suspended affected pools as a precaution, with Vesu expecting them to remove the restrictions after reviewing the fix.

Because Vesu uses isolated and curated lending pools, decisions on reopening individual markets rest with their curators. The initial update did not identify which curators had paused their pools or provide an exact timetable for restoring normal activity.

Vesu says its contracts contained no vulnerability

Separating the incident from a smart contract exploit, Vesu said its contracts were “operating as designed” and did not contain a vulnerability. The protocol added that it had no contract patch to deploy because the liquidation engine responded to the prices it received.

In an overcollateralized lending market, a borrower deposits assets worth more than the value of a loan. The protocol uses an external price feed to measure the collateral ratio, and a liquidation may begin when that ratio falls below the pool’s required level.

Vesu attributed the Sept. 4 liquidations to bad inputs rather than faulty execution. Under its account, the contracts received incorrect collateral prices and processed the affected positions according to the rules already written into the protocol.

A July 2026 liquidation risk explainer from crypto.news described price data as the central input used to calculate a DeFi loan’s health factor. The report noted that stale or manipulated data can liquidate a healthy position or prevent an unsafe one from being closed.

Oracle dependence also extends beyond lending markets. An August 2026 report on blockchain oracles explained that smart contracts cannot independently read off-chain market prices, leaving them reliant on outside systems that collect, combine and publish data on-chain.

According to that report, an oracle normally handles data sourcing, aggregation, and on-chain delivery. A failure at any of the three stages can pass an inaccurate value to an otherwise functional smart contract, which may then complete a trade or liquidation based on the faulty input.

Recovery talks involve Starknet organizations

Following the incident, Vesu said it began coordinating with Pragma, StarkWare, the Starknet Foundation, and the curators of the affected pools to recover funds collected through the liquidations.

The protocol has not yet explained how the recovery process will operate, how much of the $3 million remains recoverable, or whether liquidators have agreed to return any assets. Its statement also stopped short of announcing a guaranteed reimbursement amount or payment date.

For users with deposits in Vesu’s Earn product, the protocol advised keeping their positions open. Closing an Earn position before the recovery process is complete may remove the user’s eligibility for a refund, according to Vesu.

Borrowers whose positions were liquidated during the two-minute window were asked to open a support ticket through Vesu’s Discord server. The protocol did not specify what records users must submit, though wallet addresses and transaction details can identify affected positions on-chain.

Vesu’s response differs from an automatic reversal because blockchain transactions generally remain final after confirmation. Any restoration would therefore require recovered assets, voluntary returns from liquidators, protocol-controlled funds, or another compensation arrangement agreed upon by the parties. Vesu has not said which route it plans to use.

A comparable oracle-related event occurred on Aave in March 2026, when a stale parameter caused an estimated $26 million to $27 million in unintended wstETH liquidations. An August 2026 review of the incident reported that Aave later examined oracle update rates and fallback systems while using several oracle sources for major collateral types.

Vesu has not announced comparable changes to its oracle structure. Pragma’s root-cause fix was the only technical measure confirmed in the initial disclosure.

US users depend on Vesu’s recovery process

For users in the United States, the incident involves a permissionless DeFi product rather than an insured bank account. The SEC’s Investor.gov website states that the FDIC insures deposits at eligible banks but does not protect securities or similar investments against a decline in value.

Vesu did not point to any government-backed protection for affected users. Instead, it directed them to its own support process and said the organizations involved were working to recover the collateral taken during the abnormal liquidations.

The protocol has not disclosed whether it restricts recovery by nationality or residence. Its instructions apply to users whose positions were liquidated during the identified window and to Earn depositors seeking to preserve possible refund eligibility.

At the network level, Vesu forms part of Starknet’s DeFi infrastructure. Starknet identified the lender as one of the protocols supporting its STRK20 privacy rollout in June 2026, alongside decentralized exchanges avnu and Ekubo and staking provider Endur.

Vesu said it will publish a complete technical report after its investigation, while affected borrowers can submit Discord support tickets, and Earn users have been told not to close their positions.

Poland’s lawmakers have once again fallen short of the supermajority needed to overturn President Karol Nawrocki’s veto of a bill intended to tighten oversight of the country’s crypto market. On Friday, the Sejm voted 241–198 in favor of overriding the veto, with three abstentions, leaving the proposal 25 votes short of the 266 required for passage.

The vote was the latest attempt to move the legislation forward after Nawrocki vetoed similar crypto rules three separate times, arguing the draft would impose excessive constraints on the industry. The renewed push comes as Prime Minister Donald Tusk highlights an expanding criminal investigation tied to the defunct exchange Zondacrypto—an issue that has added urgency for regulators and lawmakers to formalize a clearer supervisory framework.

Key takeaways

• The Sejm’s 241–198 vote confirms support for overriding the president, but it still missed the three-fifths threshold by 25 votes.
• Poland still does not have a designated national supervisor for cryptoassets under the proposed framework, despite the EU’s MiCA regime already applying across member states.
• Nawrocki’s vetoes rest on concerns about regulatory overreach, including compliance costs and powers that could be used to block websites.
• Tusk’s renewed statements tie the oversight debate to the continuing Zondacrypto scandal, including alleged political influence and financial arrangements.

A failed veto override keeps Poland’s crypto oversight in limbo

The bill at the center of Friday’s vote is designed to establish Poland’s national approach for applying the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). The proposal would place supervision of the cryptoasset market under the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), giving domestic regulators a clear mandate to enforce relevant rules.

Even though MiCA is already in force across the EU, Poland’s legislative process has not yet delivered the required national structure. KNF said on Friday that the country still lacks an authority responsible for supervising the cryptoasset market, a gap that matters for market participants because enforcement and supervision responsibilities must be assigned domestically rather than handled only at the EU level.

KNF warns of a missing supervisor as MiCA already applies

KNF’s statement underscores a practical problem: MiCA sets the framework, but supervision in each jurisdiction depends on the domestic rules and institutions that implement and enforce it. Without a properly designated national regulator, compliance questions can become harder for businesses, and regulatory clarity for users can remain incomplete.

That regulatory vacuum is exactly what the vetoed legislation attempted to fix—by anchoring crypto supervision within KNF. By failing to reach the vote threshold required to overturn Nawrocki, Poland remains without that assigned authority, leaving the market awaiting a clearer chain of responsibility.

Why Nawrocki continues to veto: costs and enforcement powers

Nawrocki has repeatedly argued that the draft goes too far. In earlier coverage of the president’s second and third vetoes, the president’s concerns were described as including regulatory costs for the industry and provisions that could grant authorities powers to block websites.

Supporters of the override, meanwhile, appear to treat the bill as necessary not only for compliance with MiCA but also for protecting consumers and improving oversight—especially in the wake of high-profile failures in the crypto sector.

Zondacrypto pressures the debate as prosecutors expand investigations

The political conflict over crypto regulation is playing out alongside the Zondacrypto fallout. Tusk has urged tighter oversight by citing what he described as testimony from a key witness connected to the investigation, including claims about payments and attempted influence reaching into Poland’s previous government.

In excerpts Tusk disclosed ahead of Friday’s vote, he alleged that the witness described a 2 million Polish zloty (about $550,000) payment arrangement involving a foundation linked to former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. Tusk also cited other testimony in which an unnamed person allegedly promised a presidential pardon in exchange for the witness’s conviction outcome.

Meanwhile, prosecutors are investigating suspected fraud and money laundering related to Zondacrypto. In July, they merged the case with an inquiry tied to the 2022 disappearance of Sylwester Suszek, the founder of BitBay—later renamed Zondacrypto—according to a Polish government disclosure referenced in the reporting.

Loss estimates cited by prosecutors place damages linked to Zondacrypto at no less than 350 million Polish zlotys (about $95 million), reflecting the scale of the case that regulators say should heighten the need for effective oversight.

Bankruptcy proceedings begin, but political scrutiny continues

Zondacrypto’s operator, BB Trade Estonia, was declared bankrupt by an Estonian court in August, with the first creditors’ meeting scheduled for Sept. 17. The bankruptcy adds another layer to the oversight debate: as insolvency processes unfold, creditors and affected users typically look for clearer accountability and stronger regulatory barriers to reduce the risk of similar failures.

Yet the veto override failure suggests that even in the face of an escalating investigation and a visible market fallout, political agreement in Poland remains difficult—particularly when the president argues that the proposed rules would be overly burdensome or grant enforcement powers he considers too sweeping.

Next, Poland’s lawmakers will likely have to decide whether to revisit the same bill with changes that address the veto concerns while still meeting the core need identified by KNF: assigning a domestic authority to supervise cryptoassets under MiCA. Readers should watch whether future Sejm attempts can reach the three-fifths threshold—and how the Zondacrypto investigation developments shape the urgency of the legislation.

Bitcoin holders whose coins have remained dormant for more than five years have doubled their spending activity since May, pushing the cohort’s 90-day average to about 1,500 BTC.

Bitcoin OG activity doubles from May levels

CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost reported that activity among Bitcoin’s oldest holders has increased during the latest period of price consolidation. The analyst defines the group as investors whose coins had remained unspent for more than five years before moving onchain.

The 90-day moving average of spent outputs from the cohort has reached about 1,500 BTC, twice the level recorded in May, according to Darkfost. A moving average smooths daily changes, making it less sensitive to isolated transfers from a few large wallets.

At 1,500 BTC, the current average is also about 56% above the 962 BTC reported on June 24. At the time, the reading had fallen below 1,000 BTC for the first time since November 2024, indicating that activity from older holders had slowed to its lowest point in nearly two years.

As previously reported by crypto.news, earlier peaks appeared in May 2024, February 2025, and September 2025. Daily movements during those periods exceeded 10,000 BTC, 30,000 BTC, and, in one case, 142,000 BTC.

Darkfost linked the latest increase to unease created by Bitcoin’s consolidation. Even investors who have held through several market cycles appear more active, the analyst said, although the data cannot identify the reason behind each transaction.

Bitcoin traded near $79,600 at the time of writing, down about 1.8% over 24 hours after moving between an intraday low of $78,723 and a high of $81,370. The price has struggled to establish a lasting move above $80,000 following several sharp swings around the level.

Spent UTXOs do not prove Bitcoin was sold

A spent UTXO records Bitcoin that has been used as an input in a new transaction. Because Bitcoin’s ledger tracks transaction outputs rather than account balances, an output becomes “spent” whenever its owner moves the coins to another address.

Movement alone does not identify the purpose of a transaction. An investor can send BTC to an exchange for a possible sale, transfer it to a new custodian, consolidate several outputs, divide a balance across wallets or replace an old security setup.

Darkfost cautioned against treating the 1,500 BTC average as confirmed selling. Some of the transactions may represent holders moving their coins to safer storage after the Coldcard security incident rather than exiting their positions.

Destination data provides more useful evidence when an old wallet sends coins to a labeled exchange or trading firm. Even then, an exchange deposit shows that the Bitcoin became available for trading; it does not establish that the owner completed a sale.

Recent dormant-wallet transfers illustrate the limitation. During a 10-day period in August, six wallets that had remained inactive for almost 12 to more than 15 years moved 553.59 BTC worth $40.15 million.

Five transfers went to addresses with no identified exchange connection. One wallet sent 40 BTC to an address labeled Boerse Stuttgart Digital, which provides custody and trading infrastructure. Neither the unlabeled destinations nor the custody provider established whether the owners sold, changed custodians, or reorganized their holdings.

Another 28 dormant wallets moved 1,314.41 BTC on Aug. 20, including more than 1,200 BTC from addresses created in 2014. Blockchain records documented the transfers but did not reveal the owners’ intentions.

Coldcard incident complicates onchain readings

The Coldcard incident created an unusual source of Bitcoin activity after a firmware flaw exposed seed phrases generated by affected hardware wallet models. Owners were advised to create new seeds and transfer their holdings because installing corrected firmware could not repair credentials produced by vulnerable software.

In early August, K33 Research found that nearly 890,000 BTC had moved over seven days, the highest seven-day active supply recorded in 2026. The surge occurred while Bitcoin was trading within one of its narrowest 30-day ranges since 2023, separating the rise in network activity from a major price breakout.

Researchers linked the activity partly to Coldcard users migrating funds and attackers draining vulnerable wallets. Galaxy Research had confirmed the theft of 1,596 BTC from about 7,300 addresses across three attack waves by Aug. 5.

Galaxy estimated that losses could reach approximately 2,055 BTC, then worth close to $130 million, if a suspected fourth wave was confirmed. Around 90% of the stolen Bitcoin had not moved after the initial attacks at that stage, according to the research firm.

Transfers made for seed migration still consume old UTXOs, so they can raise spending metrics even when the owner keeps control of the coins. The effect can reach age-based cohorts if affected wallets contain Bitcoin that has remained untouched for five years or longer.

Wallet consolidation can produce a similar result. Combining several old outputs into one new output records the original UTXOs as spent without changing the owner’s total balance, apart from the network fee.

U.S. investors can hold Bitcoin without managing seeds

For U.S. investors, the Coldcard incident has renewed attention on the custody differences between directly held Bitcoin and shares of a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. Direct holders control spendable BTC but remain responsible for seed creation, backups, firmware updates, and wallet migration.

ETF investors do not manage private keys because the fund and its service providers handle custody. Bloomberg Intelligence senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas argued in August that the Coldcard losses strengthened the case for ETFs among investors who only want exposure to Bitcoin’s price.

An earlier report on the U.S. custody debate noted that no verified flow data had tied ETF demand directly to the incident. Investor responses could also include multisignature wallets, new hardware devices, institutional custodians, or the division of funds across several storage methods.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust uses Coinbase Custody to hold its Bitcoin in segregated cold-storage wallets, according to the fund’s SEC filing. The trust may also use Anchorage Digital Bank as an additional custodian.

ETF ownership transfers personal seed risk to fund operators, custodians, and other service providers. BlackRock’s filing warns that hacking, employee misconduct, technical failures and unauthorized transfers could still cause losses, while available insurance may not cover every event.

Unlike direct holders, retail ETF shareholders cannot withdraw the underlying Bitcoin to a personal wallet or use it for onchain payments. Fund shares trade during U.S. market hours, while Bitcoin transactions remain available around the clock.

Polish lawmakers have again failed to secure the three-fifths majority needed to overturn President Karol Nawrocki’s veto of legislation aimed at strengthening oversight of the country’s crypto market.

The Sejm, Poland’s lower house of parliament, on Friday voted 241-198 in favor of overriding the veto, with three abstentions, falling 25 votes short of the 266 needed.

The vote was yet another attempt to advance Poland’s crypto market rules after President Karol Nawrocki vetoed crypto legislation three times, arguing that the proposed rules would overregulate the industry.

The regulatory dispute comes amid a deepening scandal involving defunct crypto exchange Zondacrypto, with its Estonian operator declared bankrupt and Prime Minister Donald Tusk citing an expanding criminal investigation to push for tighter crypto oversight.

Poland remains without MiCA crypto supervisor

The vetoed legislation was designed to establish Poland’s national framework for applying the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), including placing oversight of the crypto market under the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF).

KNF said Friday that the country still lacks a designated authority responsible for supervising the cryptoasset market, despite MiCA already applying across the European Union.

Nawrocki has said he supports crypto regulation but argues that Poland’s proposed rules go too far, citing concerns over regulatory costs and authorities’ powers to block websites.

Zondacrypto probe expands amid bankruptcy

Ahead of Friday’s vote, Tusk disclosed excerpts from what he said was testimony by a key witness in the Zondacrypto investigation, alleging payments and attempts to influence politicians linked to Poland’s previous government.

Tusk said the witness alleged a 2 million Polish zloty ($550,000) payment arrangement involving a foundation linked to former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. In separate testimony cited by Tusk, the witness alleged that an unnamed person had promised to secure a presidential pardon if the witness was convicted.

Related: Polish Olympic chief charged in Zondacrypto probe, justice minister says

Polish prosecutors are investigating suspected fraud and money laundering connected to Zondacrypto. In July, they merged the case with a probe into the 2022 disappearance of Sylwester Suszek, founder of BitBay, which was later renamed Zondacrypto.

Prosecutors in April said losses linked to Zondacrypto were estimated at no less than 350 million Polish zlotys ($95 million).

Zondacrypto’s operator, BB Trade Estonia, was officially declared bankrupt by an Estonian court in August, with the first creditors’ meeting scheduled for Sept. 17.

Magazine: MiCA is coming for DeFi vaults, but regulation will be difficult

Bitcoin price fell back below $80,000 after stronger-than-expected US employment data lifted Federal Reserve rate-hike expectations, while technical charts showed the rally had already met resistance near $82,500.

Bitcoin price falls below $80,000

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price traded near $79,600 at the time of writing, down about 1.5% over 24 hours. The asset had reached an intraday high near $81,370 before sellers pushed it as low as $78,723.

The pullback followed an earlier rally that carried Bitcoin above $82,000, its highest level since May. Buyers failed to sustain that move, leaving the price below a major resistance zone visible on the daily chart.

Bitcoin’s daily candle showed the asset trading near $79,613 after touching a session high of $79,763. The price remained below horizontal resistance at approximately $82,504, a level that also sits close to the May swing high.

The rejection interrupted a sharp recovery from the August range near $62,500. Bitcoin gained roughly 30% during that advance and broke above several previous lower highs, but the $82,000–$82,800 region has stopped two recent attempts to extend the rally.

Strong US jobs data triggered the pullback

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in August, well above the average monthly gain of 31,000 recorded over the previous 12 months. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%.

Employment increased by 59,000 in food services and drinking places, while local government education added 42,000 jobs. The information sector lost 23,000 positions.

The report led traders to raise the probability of a Federal Reserve rate increase at its Sept. 15–16 meeting. According to Reuters, the implied probability rose to 61% from 52% before the employment data.

Citigroup consequently moved its forecast for the Fed’s next rate cut to June 2027 from October 2026. Higher rate expectations also pushed Treasury yields upward and supported the dollar, creating pressure on non-yielding and risk-sensitive assets.

Analyst Rain said the employment report was the immediate trigger for Bitcoin’s decline, but argued that the technical setup preceded the release. Rain noted that BTC had been rejected around $82,400 several hours before the data arrived.

The analyst said the strong jobs reading removed part of the Fed’s case for lowering rates, forcing markets to reprice the probability of tighter policy rather than changing Bitcoin’s longer-term investment case.

Bitcoin technicals keep $82,500 in focus

Bitcoin’s daily relative strength index stood at 66.28, below the overbought threshold of 70. The RSI had recently moved above 70 during the rally but turned lower as the price struggled below resistance, showing that upward momentum had cooled.

The Aroon indicator offered a more constructive signal. Aroon Up measured 85.71%, compared with an Aroon Down reading of 7.14%, indicating that recent highs remain more influential than recent lows despite the pullback.

On the 4-hour chart, Bitcoin continued to trade above the Supertrend line at $78,190. The indicator remains bullish while the price holds above that level, making the $78,000–$78,200 area the first technical support zone.

The 4-hour Chaikin Money Flow reading of 0.19 also remained above zero. The indicator points to net buying pressure over its measurement period, although it does not rule out another short-term test of support.

A daily close above $82,504 would clear the immediate resistance and weaken the bearish rejection setup. Reuters’ technical analysis identified the broader May resistance near $82,793 and said a confirmed breakout could expose $90,000, followed by Bitcoin’s 2026 peak near $97,867.

Failure to defend the 4-hour Supertrend would shift attention to approximately $77,000. Below that area, the next visible supports sit near $75,700 and $71,800.

Liquidation heatmap shows pressure on both sides

The one-week CoinGlass liquidation heatmap showed a dense concentration of leveraged positions close to $80,000. Another large liquidity band appeared between roughly $81,800 and $82,300, placing potential short liquidations directly below the daily resistance area.

A move through $80,000 could therefore draw the price toward the upper cluster, although heatmap levels identify estimated liquidation concentrations rather than guaranteed price targets.

On the downside, the strongest nearby pool appeared around $78,000, with additional concentrations between $76,000 and $77,000. Losing $78,000 could expose leveraged long positions and accelerate a drop toward the lower liquidity bands.

The location of those clusters leaves Bitcoin between competing liquidation zones. The $78,000 support and $82,000 resistance areas could produce sharper moves if either side gives way.

Analysts warn of a possible Bitcoin bull trap

Trader Gerla said Bitcoin’s structure has improved, but warned that momentum has repeatedly reversed after the daily RSI entered overbought territory during the current cycle.

Gerla identified $82,000–$84,000 as the invalidation area for the bearish setup. According to the analyst, a strong close above that range, supported by high trading volume, would reduce the risk that the latest rally is a bull trap.

Until such a breakout occurs, the analyst sees a risk that another rejection could force leveraged buyers out of the market and produce a larger correction.

US inflation data now provides the next major test. The August consumer price index is scheduled for Sept. 11, five days before the Fed’s rate decision. A hotter reading could reinforce expectations of a hike, while softer inflation could lower those odds and give Bitcoin another opportunity to challenge $82,500.

Robinhood Chain has recorded less than 1% of its analyzed transactions through a contract clearly linked to Robinhood Wallet users, according to ARK Invest research director Lorenzo Valente.

According to Lorenzo Valente’s analysis, contract-level data indicates that most trading on Robinhood Chain comes from existing on-chain traders rather than new cryptocurrency users entering through Robinhood.

Valente, ARK Invest’s director of research for digital assets, examined which smart contracts generated transactions on the network. His review sought to separate activity that could be linked directly to Robinhood products from trades routed through outside wallets and applications.

Robinhood Wallet sends swaps through the 0x Settler contract, making that route the clearest source of transactions from the company’s wallet users, according to Valente. Transactions involving the contract represented less than 1% of the activity included in his analysis.

Allowing for contracts that could not be identified raised the possible Robinhood-linked share to about 5%, he estimated. Valente described the estimate as generous because some of the unidentified activity could also have come from outside trading services.

Robinhood Chain activity comes mainly from external platforms

Most of the identifiable volume outside the 0x Settler route came through GMGN and OKX, Valente said. Both platforms give traders access to on-chain assets without requiring them to use Robinhood Wallet as their main entry point.

GMGN functions as a trading terminal for users seeking newly issued tokens and other speculative assets across several blockchains. OKX also offers a Web3 wallet and decentralized exchange tools that can connect to Ethereum Virtual Machine networks.

Comparing the transaction patterns across chains, Valente said the activity on Robinhood Chain resembled the behavior already seen from users of the same services elsewhere. He described the network as attracting the “same degens” to a new blockchain, rather than showing clear evidence that Robinhood had introduced a separate group of users to on-chain markets.

Valente framed the observation as his reading of the contract data, not a customer count supplied by Robinhood. Wallets can also interact through aggregators, custom contracts, or routes that make their original source difficult to identify, limiting how precisely public blockchain data can assign transactions to individual platforms.

The findings concern transaction origins rather than the number of people using each wallet. One address may belong to a single user, a trading bot, an application, or a service that combines transactions for several customers.

An open network complicates Robinhood user counts

Robinhood Chain operates as a permissionless Ethereum Layer 2 built with Arbitrum technology. EVM-compatible wallets and applications can connect without holding a Robinhood brokerage account, while developers can deploy contracts without restricting access to the company’s customers.

Such access means the network’s total transactions, fees, and decentralized exchange volume cannot automatically be treated as Robinhood customer activity. A trade made through GMGN or OKX still appears on Robinhood Chain, even when the trader never enters through Robinhood’s wallet interface.

The distinction matters because the network has generated large trading and revenue figures since its July 1 mainnet launch. Crypto.news previously reported that three leading applications produced about 93% of measured application revenue during one 24-hour period.

GMGN led that snapshot with approximately $1.11 million, followed by the Pons token-launch platform with about $1.03 million and Uniswap with roughly $327,707. The concentration supported the view that a small group of crypto-native services drove much of the network’s early fee activity.

On Sept. 2, Robinhood Chain generated $4.01 million in chain revenue from $4.45 million in total fees, according to DeFiLlama data cited in a separate report. Its cumulative decentralized exchange volume had also crossed $47 billion in under two months, while GMGN and Pons accounted for much of the memecoin trading.

Robinhood has covered transaction costs during the network’s first 90 days, with the gas subsidy scheduled to run through the end of September. The free gas program has allowed traders and applications to execute transactions without paying the usual network fee themselves.

Tokenized stocks form a smaller but growing market

Robinhood introduced the chain partly as infrastructure for tokenized stocks, real-world assets, and decentralized finance. Trading activity, however, has also spread into memecoins and newly issued tokens that are not central to the brokerage’s stock-token strategy.

Uniswap processed $1 billion in cumulative tokenized-stock volume on Robinhood Chain by Aug. 21. The total covered swaps involved several stock-linked tokens rather than assets deposited on the network or trading in a single product.

Stock tokens remain unavailable to investors in the United States. Robinhood has offered the products across more than 120 countries, according to its August earnings call, allowing eligible overseas customers to gain price exposure to U.S. stocks through blockchain-based instruments.

For American readers, Robinhood Markets remains the direct listed exposure to the company’s blockchain strategy through its Nasdaq-traded HOOD shares. On-chain transactions generated by outside services should not be treated as equivalent to new U.S. brokerage accounts, cryptocurrency customers, or revenue reported in Robinhood’s financial statements.

Robinhood reported 28.4 million funded customers at the end of the second quarter, up 1.9 million, or 7%, from a year earlier. Its investment accounts increased 9% to 29.9 million, while total platform assets reached $369 billion, according to the company’s second-quarter results.

Robinhood’s customer base remains a separate metric

Supporters of the network have pointed to Robinhood’s existing customer base as a possible route for bringing more people on-chain. BitMine Chairman Tom Lee said in August that access to millions of funded accounts could make Robinhood Chain an important source of new Ethereum users.

Early network data has not yet established that connection, according to Valente’s contract review. Confirmed Robinhood Wallet routing represented only a small part of the transactions he examined, while trading terminals used by experienced crypto participants accounted for most of the activity he could identify.

Robinhood said during its second-quarter earnings call that it served more than 1 million accounts outside the United States. The company also reported quarterly revenue of $1.3 billion, up 32% from a year earlier, and said it added nearly 1 million funded customers during the quarter.

Robinhood Chain has set a daily fee record of $6.04 million, lifting its seven-day annualized revenue rate to approximately $1.1 billion as memecoin trading and token launches drive network activity.

Robinhood Chain daily fees reach $6.04 million

DefiLlama data showed Robinhood Chain collecting $6.04 million in transaction fees over the latest 24-hour period, exceeding the previous level of about $4.6 million and setting a record for the network.

After deducting Ethereum settlement expenses and Robinhood Chain’s fee-sharing obligations to the Arbitrum ecosystem, the network retained approximately $5.44 million as chain revenue. Fees refer to the total amount users paid, while revenue measures the portion kept by the network after associated costs and allocations.

Robinhood Chain generated $20.33 million in revenue during the latest seven-day period, according to the same dashboard. Maintaining that rate for a full year would produce approximately $1.06 billion, commonly rounded to $1.1 billion.

Annualized figures are projections based on a short measurement period rather than revenue already earned. A few days of unusually active trading can raise the estimate quickly, while a decline in transactions would pull it lower.

The latest record extends a rapid increase from Sept. 2, when the chain collected $4.45 million in fees and retained $4.01 million. Its revenue therefore rose by approximately 36% between the two readings, although both figures came from rolling 24-hour windows.

As crypto.news previously reported, Robinhood Chain’s early rise included approximately $3.6 million in transaction fees during July, its first month after the public mainnet launch. The latest one-day total has now exceeded the amount recorded across that entire month.

Memecoin platforms account for much of the activity

Applications built around memecoin trading and token issuance have supplied a large share of the chain’s recent fee income. GMGN generated approximately $2.9 million in revenue across its supported networks over the latest 24 hours, while its seven-day total reached $13.84 million, DefiLlama data showed.

GMGN provides token-monitoring, wallet-tracking, and trade-execution tools rather than issuing tokens itself. The platform charges users when they trade through its interface, allowing higher volume to feed directly into its fee totals.

Robinhood Chain has recently become GMGN’s largest revenue source. Data cited in an August report showed that the network contributed $11.67 million of the platform’s approximately $19.81 million in monthly revenue at the time, ahead of BNB Chain and Solana.

Pons has added another major source of activity. The Robinhood Chain launchpad allows users to issue and trade tokens, charging launch fees and collecting part of the swap fees generated during trading.

Over the latest 24-hour measurement period, Pons retained approximately $1.24 million in protocol revenue. Its seven-day and 30-day revenue totals stood at $5.95 million and $9.04 million, respectively.

Fee volume on Pons has been much larger than the amount retained by the protocol. A recent network breakdown found that users paid $5.95 million through Pons in one 24-hour period, while approximately $1.11 million counted as protocol revenue.

Under the platform’s model, part of the trading fees goes to token creators rather than remaining with Pons. Separating gross fees from retained revenue is therefore necessary when comparing Pons with Robinhood Chain or other protocols.

GMGN, Pons, and Uniswap accounted for approximately 93% of Robinhood Chain application revenue in a recent DefiLlama snapshot. GMGN contributed around $1.11 million, Pons generated roughly $1.03 million, and Uniswap supplied about $327,707 during that measured period.

Concentration among a small group of applications leaves the chain’s daily results sensitive to changes in memecoin volume. Rolling dashboard totals can also change throughout the day as older transactions leave the 24-hour window and new transactions enter it.

DEX volume climbs above $1.7 billion

Alongside the fee record, decentralized exchanges on Robinhood Chain processed approximately $1.71 billion in trading volume over 24 hours. Seven-day DEX volume reached $9.95 billion after increasing 105% from the preceding comparable period.

Pons has supplied a large portion of that trading. On Aug. 30, the launchpad processed about $445 million of the chain’s $874.8 million in DEX volume, meaning one application accounted for slightly more than half of the daily total.

Trading has not been limited to conventional memecoins. Launchpads on the network have also created markets that pair user-issued tokens with assets linked to publicly traded companies, combining speculative token activity with Robinhood’s tokenized-equity offering.

Uniswap serves as a main liquidity venue for those markets. In August, tokenized stock trading involving Robinhood Chain exceeded $1 billion in cumulative volume through Uniswap.

The total represented swap volume involving stock tokens, not the value of tokenized equities held on the network. Markets have included tokens tracking companies such as Nvidia, Apple, and Alphabet.

Robinhood Chain’s total value locked stood at approximately $1.17 billion in native protocols at the latest reading, while its bridged value reached about $3.03 billion. Stablecoins on the chain carried a market capitalization of approximately $951.8 million after rising 26.6% over seven days.

U.S. investors gain exposure through Robinhood stock

Robinhood launched the network on July 1 as an Ethereum Layer 2 built with Arbitrum Orbit technology. ETH serves as its gas token, while transactions are ultimately settled on Ethereum.

The chain does not have an official native token. Community-issued assets trading on it, including PONS, are not Robinhood securities and do not give holders ownership in Robinhood Markets.

For American investors, the most direct regulated exposure to the company remains Robinhood Markets stock, which trades on Nasdaq under the HOOD ticker. Network revenue could affect the company’s financial results if Robinhood records the retained fees as corporate income, but annualized blockchain estimates are not equivalent to revenue reported in Robinhood’s audited financial statements.

Robinhood’s Stock Tokens are available in more than 120 countries but remain unavailable to U.S. residents. The products provide economic exposure to referenced equities rather than legal ownership of the underlying shares, according to an earlier chain review.

Under the Arbitrum Expansion Program, 10% of Robinhood Chain’s net revenue goes to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Eight percentage points flow to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, while two percentage points support a developer guild. Applying the arrangement to the latest $5.44 million daily revenue figure would allocate approximately $544,000 before any later adjustments recorded by the participating parties.