# Robinhood Chain liquidity — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-24 13:59 UTC)
## @prismassets (Prism Assets) · 09-24 11:23 · ♥135 ↻34 💬17 Prism is becoming its own blockchain. https://x.com/prismassets/status/2103082779579998616
## @jacek0x (jacek.h00d.eth) · 09-24 11:01 · ♥71 ↻8 💬37 When I posted my original experimental token tweet below, the broader idea was to release a series of tokens on Robinhood Chain, with each one building on the previous one.
POOF was the first step. It’s a simple ERC-20 paired with $DEGEN, based on the idea that using DEGEN as the quote asset can create additional demand and activity around it.
One of the ideas I had for what could come next was an “up-only” token using a Uniswap v4 hook, with its liquidity paired directly against POOF.
This isn’t an announcement, just sharing some of the thinking behind the original experiment and getting feedback on whether people find mechanics like this interesting.
The idea is that the new token would have a 99% sell fee at launch, but that fee would decrease permanently as POOF reaches higher market-cap milestones:
POOF below $1M: 99% POOF at $1M: 90% POOF at $2M: 80% POOF at $3M: 70% POOF at $4M: 60% POOF at $5M: 50% POOF at $6M: 40% POOF at $7M: 30% POOF at $8M: 20% POOF at $9M: 10% POOF at $10M: 1%
Once POOF unlocks a lower fee tier, it could never go back up, even if POOF’s market cap later falls.
That creates a pretty interesting shared goal. Holders of the new token would have a direct incentive to see POOF grow because POOF reaching each milestone permanently makes their token more liquid.
And because the new token would itself be paired with POOF, you’d need POOF to buy it. Any sell fees collected would also be used to buy POOF.
So the idea is basically to build another layer on top of POOF where the underlying asset becoming more valuable literally unlocks the market above it.
That was the broader thinking behind the original experiment: each new token could introduce a different onchain mechanic while creating demand and utility for the layer underneath it.
Not saying this is next, just sharing the idea. Curious what people think. > 引用 @jacek0x: Launching a few memecoins on Robinhood Chain for fun. All paired with $DEGEN.
No allocation for me, and trading fees go back into the pool over time.
First one live in a few hours. 🎩 https://x.com/jacek0x/status/2103077239546085454
## @DayTradeKade (Futures Sniper) · 09-24 05:04 · ♥83 ↻8 💬11 🚨 Another $WALLET piece just clicked for me.
I’ve seen this argument probably 100 times now: “If $WALLET was actually Robinhood, the money aa33 is making from fees would’ve shown up in earnings. It didn’t. Theory over.”
I thought that was a fair argument, until I actually lined up the dates.
Robinhood’s Q2 ended June 30. Robinhood Chain went live July 1. Literally the next day.
Then on July 10, aa33 launched $WALLET.
Something important we have talked about previously; aa33 does not make money from owning a bag of $WALLET. Aa33 makes money through volume and fees.
When people trade $WALLET through its liquidity pool, the pool charges a fee on those swaps. Part of those collected fees gets distributed back to aa33 as the creator/deployer beneficiary.
It is all verifiable on-chain.
For example: On July 10 the $WALLET/WETH LP collected 0.335078 WETH in fees. Of that, 0.117277 WETH was sent directly to aa33.
35% of the WETH fees from that collection went to aa33.
That’s actual income from trading activity. Robinhood would legally need to report this if aa33 were their wallet.
Now go back to the earnings argument.
Robinhood reported earnings July 29, which is why people keep saying, “Well where was this revenue?”
I completely overlooked this at first too.
Those were Q2 earnings.
Q2 covered April 1 through June 30.
$WALLET didn’t even exist until July 10.
So how exactly would July $WALLET fees have been included in revenue for a quarter that ended 10 days before the token launched?
They wouldn’t.
“But the revenue wasn’t in Robinhood’s July earnings” is not the smoking gun people think it is.
If aa33/$WALLET ultimately turns out to be controlled by or economically tied to Robinhood, then the post-June 30 economics belong to a later reporting period and would have to be accounted for accordingly.
Just look at the dates:
Q2 closes: June 30 Robinhood Chain: July 1 $WALLET launches: July 10 aa33 starts receiving $WALLET LP fees: July 10 Q2 earnings call: July 29
If your argument against $WALLET has been “Robinhood already reported earnings and the revenue wasn’t there”…
you’ve been looking at the wrong quarter.
The earnings period that actually includes $WALLET’s trading activity hasn’t been reported yet.
Make of it what you will. 🐇 https://x.com/DayTradeKade/status/2102987614605521131