Dialogue with Robinhood Co-founder: Why Don't We Create Our Own Chain?

Original Title: Vlad Tenev Wants to Tokenize SpaceX & OpenAI on Robinhood

Original Source: Bankless

Original Compilation: kkk, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: On June 30, Vlad Tenev, co-founder of Robinhood, posted on X that the company would announce a significant update related to its crypto business at 11 PM Beijing time tonight. This move aligns perfectly with Robinhood's current pace of comprehensive expansion in the crypto and fintech sectors.

As fintech gradually evolves towards "platformization" and "intelligence," Robinhood stands at the intersection of traditional brokerage and the new order of crypto, reshaping the potential forms of future personal financial services with a series of product line reorganizations.

Robinhood is moving away from a single trading tool positioning, shifting towards an "operating system" layout centered around the entire user lifecycle. From private equity tokenization, integrating CFTC-compliant prediction markets, launching Cortex and Strategies covering AI strategy advisory and options strategy construction, to introducing "cash delivery" style Robinhood Banking and a unified multi-chain wallet architecture, its financial landscape expansion pace far exceeds traditional expectations of a fintech company.

In this deep interview with Bankless, Tenev systematically elaborated on Robinhood's overall vision for expanding into crypto, AI, private banking services, and private equity. He emphasized that Robinhood is not the "opposite of centralization," but is becoming a bridge connecting TradFi and DeFi: providing more efficient and fair financial access methods outside of traditional banking licenses; at the same time, he responded to the controversy of "whether it is Bankless," pointing out that Robinhood plays the role of a channel service provider rather than a sovereign issuer in the crypto business.

Currently, Robinhood is no longer just an entry ticket for retail investors in U.S. stocks, but is attempting to become a shared entry point for crypto-native users, AI wealth management users, and global asset investors.

This interview was published on March 31, and the following is a compilation of the conversation:

Bankless: Welcome to Bankless, a show dedicated to exploring the forefront of internet finance. Today, my guest is Vlad Tenev, CEO of Robinhood. With the continuous growth of platform users and assets under management, Robinhood is accelerating its position as a leading player in the cryptocurrency space. In fact, they entered the crypto market early: not only did they provide cryptocurrency trading features in the Robinhood App, but they also launched the Robinhood Wallet—a truly non-custodial crypto wallet.

However, due to the previous U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement of strict regulations on the crypto space, Robinhood's further expansion in the crypto field was once put on hold. Now that phase has passed, and I want to understand how Robinhood will advance its crypto product layout after finally receiving the SEC's green light. Coincidentally, during the week I was talking to Vlad, Robinhood announced a series of major product lines: including Robinhood Banking strategy and Cortex. I also took this opportunity to have an in-depth conversation with Vlad about these new businesses.

For me, the most interesting part of the entire interview, and my favorite part, was the discussion about "the increasing barriers for private companies to go public in traditional financial markets" and "how this trend intersects with the tokenization movement." Currently, the most promising companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic are still private companies. Although their equity circulates in various ways in the private market, there is no truly public market.

Vlad believes that tokenization can play a significant role here—it can not only bring liquidity to these private companies but also provide investment opportunities for investors looking to access cutting-edge technology companies. This innovation is a perfect match, and if we were to say which platform is most suitable for carrying this tokenization market, Robinhood is undoubtedly the most promising candidate.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this interview with Vlad. Although Robinhood is not yet a fully "debanked" platform, they are continuously challenging the traditional financial system and forcing the old order to change—this is a good thing for the entire industry. So, let's officially start today's show. But before that, I want to thank the sponsors who make this show possible, allowing this so-called DeFi "Wild West" program to happen. That's why you should check out FRAC's Finance—a cutting-edge protocol that is completely reshaping the stablecoin system.

Welcome to Bankless Nation. Today, we have Vlad Tenev, CEO of Robinhood. This is Vlad's third appearance on the show. Each time he comes, there are always some major updates about Robinhood. And every time Vlad appears, Robinhood further deepens its involvement in the crypto space. This time is no exception. Vlad, it's great to have you back; welcome back to Bankless.

Vlad Tenev: Thank you for having me; I'm always happy to be here.

Bankless: You recently released a series of major product updates: Robinhood Strategies, Robinhood Banking, and Robinhood Cortex. The timing of this episode is perfect, although it's actually a coincidence. We'll talk about these products shortly, but I want to start with some more crypto-native topics, especially the new changes in the regulatory environment for crypto in the U.S.

Under the leadership of this new government, the U.S. crypto industry has welcomed many new opportunities, especially for institutional investors who were previously hesitant due to regulatory uncertainty. Now that this new government is in place, what specific "doors" have been opened? What can Robinhood do now that it couldn't do before? Which door do you plan to walk through first?

SEC Regulatory Attitude Shift

Vlad Tenev: I think the most direct change is that the U.S. has stopped the practice of "enforcement as regulation." Simply put, we no longer have to deal with a full-on crackdown on every aspect of our business. This shift has brought about tremendous improvement. For example, the SEC announced that it would stop investigating Robinhood's crypto business, as well as the crypto businesses of several other companies in the industry. At that moment, we felt an immediate sense of relief—we could finally move forward as a company and as an industry without constantly fighting against relentless suppression.

The previous administration had a very clear stance on crypto: they didn't believe it should exist at all, let alone allow it to deeply integrate with the traditional financial system. So, this policy shift is a huge boon. Additionally, there are two important legislative directions that are also advancing. Of course, I must emphasize that stopping "enforcement-style regulation" is already a significant turning point.

Another noteworthy development is the clear regulatory stance on meme coins. You may have seen that the SEC released a memo regarding meme coins, clearly stating that these tokens are not securities. This is not particularly controversial. From a legal analysis perspective, meme coins do not meet the definition of securities, which is relatively clear. However, in the past, each project had to undergo this analysis individually to determine whether it constituted a security.

Robinhood has always been one of the more compliant companies; we conduct strict reviews and compliance analyses for every cryptocurrency, including whether it constitutes a security. This is both expensive and cumbersome. So now that there is clear guidance and exemptions from the authorities, it is incredibly valuable and greatly reduces the operational burden on us and the entire industry.

Similarly, there is now a clearer definition regarding whether staking constitutes a security. This is a very positive development. Think about it: the essence of staking is that users contribute their computational resources to support the operation of the blockchain. The existence of staking service providers is to reduce the complexity of this process.

Overall, this means that users can earn higher yields, which means more crypto assets flowing into their wallets. The previous lack of clear regulation in this area was actually harming American consumers because they couldn't earn the returns they deserved on platforms with more robust regulations.

So, having clear guidance is a good thing. Currently, there are two important legislative directions being advanced in the U.S.: one is stablecoins, and the other is market structure. The stablecoin legislation is expected to pass first, which is certainly good news for the entire industry. But what we are really excited about is the legislation on "market structure."

We believe this legislation is key, as it will provide a clear roadmap for how we can integrate crypto technology into traditional financial assets in the real world. For example, securitized assets, yield-generating stablecoins, and even prediction markets. We will be able to clearly define:

Which assets are classified as crypto asset securities,

Which are classified as crypto asset commodities,

What compliance steps we need to take as a platform to launch crypto asset securities,

And what conditions issuers need to meet to offer such assets to the U.S. public.

I believe these questions are key, and legislation can help us answer them one by one, which is the real prerequisite for unlocking the potential of crypto technology. We are very excited about this.

You mentioned that some companies are exploring using stablecoins to build banking services, meaning that users' stablecoins can be staked or put into some pools to earn yields. I believe that the successful implementation of such innovative products requires the cooperation of "crypto market structure legislation," which will bring more competitors into the banking industry.

Currently, the stablecoin legislation does not fully cover these "yield-generating stablecoins," so it cannot provide a solid legal foundation for such models yet. We indeed need more regulatory clarity to make these products more compliant and safer for the public. But we remain optimistic and are actively participating in the relevant legislative work in Washington. From the current situation, the direction is positive, and we are confident about it.

Bankless: From what you’re saying, it seems that there are already many theoretically viable product lines, but we are still in an exploratory or conceptual phase. To truly enter the implementation and construction phase, Congress needs to pass the relevant bills quickly. Is my understanding correct?

Vlad Tenev: Absolutely correct. For example, a stablecoin that pays interest directly to holders is essentially very similar to a money market fund. In fact, many stablecoins themselves hold government bonds, so from this perspective, they are not much different from money market funds. The regulatory treatment of stablecoins has always been somewhat different, but we believe this is precisely where regulatory clarity is needed.

Private Equity Tokenization

Bankless: Let's talk about the field of "asset tokenization." I think this is a particularly hot topic, especially in traditional finance. Because it essentially serves as a bridge between traditional finance and the crypto world: can we put more assets on-chain to truly leverage the advantages of public, permissionless blockchains? What role does Robinhood play in this trend of tokenization? I guess you are optimistic about it. Will you become an issuer? Or a platform? Will Robinhood issue tokenized products itself? Or do you prefer to become a trading market for these products? Where do you position yourself in this tokenization technology stack?

Vlad Tenev: For us, the definition of "asset tokenization" is creating a mapping of a non-native crypto asset on-chain, allowing it to be freely traded. We already have some examples of this, like stablecoins. Stablecoins are essentially tokenized government bond assets. Another interesting example is the tokenized gold product launched by Paxos. We have also collaborated with Paxos and other companies to launch USDG, the Dollar Global Network project, aiming to create a globally appealing stablecoin that pays attractive yields to holders.

The next step is naturally tokenized securities, which is a direction we are very excited about. Because it allows global users to own shares in U.S. companies just like they would with stablecoins. Just as stablecoin legislation is seen as a tool to promote the global dominance of the dollar, tokenized securities could also become key to maintaining the dominance of U.S. companies in global markets.

Vlad Tenev: Currently, it is very difficult for overseas investors to invest in U.S. companies. Just as stablecoins have made it easy to access dollars, tokenized securities can allow global users to easily invest in U.S. stocks. This is beneficial for companies and for investors outside the U.S., as they can access quality assets as a means of diversifying their wealth against their own depreciating currencies. This is also a boon for U.S. entrepreneurs and capital markets. If we can more easily finance companies through the global crypto market, we will see more interesting and promising companies emerge. In fact, we published an op-ed in The Washington Post a few months ago calling for the promotion of private securities tokenization.

Think about it: how difficult it is to invest in private companies like OpenAI or SpaceX. And crypto technology is actually a solution. If we can tokenize the shares of private companies, it would be beneficial for both the companies and the investors. What I find absurd is that we now have clear regulatory definitions for meme coins, allowing people to freely invest in these fundamentally baseless projects, but there is no way to invest in high-quality private companies like OpenAI and SpaceX.

Bankless: If I piece together this information, there is already a "market" for SpaceX equity, but it currently remains in the private market. Many people have bought shares of SpaceX in various ways. What you mean is that we can actually tokenize these shares, using crypto to make this market more standardized and structured, turning it into a truly regulated and deep market.

In this process, Robinhood could become the platform providing the trading market. Are you saying that this is one of your roadmaps? And how far are we from Robinhood launching tokenized products for companies like SpaceX?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, Robinhood is at the intersection of traditional finance and crypto finance. We have all the crypto technology while also possessing a complete traditional financial infrastructure, as we have multiple brokerage licenses. This is precisely where we can contribute to the ecosystem.

In the future, I think this could work similarly to the issuance mechanism of ETFs. An ETF essentially holds a basket of securities and then issues ETF shares to the public. This can actually be seen as a precursor to tokenized securities. In the operation of ETFs, investors can exchange a basket of underlying assets for ETFs and can also redeem ETFs for those assets. This "creation/redemption" mechanism is actually a counterpart model to the tokenization logic in traditional finance. And crypto technology can make this process more efficient and decentralized.

Bankless: We see that while the number of IPOs hasn't plummeted dramatically, the overall trend is indeed declining. The reason is simple: the cost of going public is simply too high, making it increasingly difficult for many companies to cross that threshold. Will this also drive the development of this new path of "private market tokenization"? Or is this path too complex and difficult to implement from the perspective of compliance and traditional financial regulations? What do you think?

Vlad Tenev: I believe this trend will push "securities tokenization" to become an alternative path to IPOs. This situation will happen sooner or later—even if the U.S. does not promote it in the short term, other countries will start trying. The essence of crypto is global. If you can issue a company's shares through blockchain in a compliant jurisdiction, you can immediately reach a market with increasing liquidity, participants spread across the globe, and hundreds of millions of users. That's why I believe the U.S. will ultimately accept this trend.

This tokenization has two key uses:

First, in the startup phase, this is equivalent to a traditional IPO, which is primary market financing. The "main capital" at this stage is very important. As a founder who once started in the seed round, I know that fundraising takes up a lot of energy and resources, which is very tight for small companies. If we can quickly access a global pool of funds to complete financing, this is a very attractive option. This will also give rise to more new companies and projects, providing investors with early (though riskier) but potentially higher-return opportunities.

Second, for later-stage private companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, the founders of these companies have already raised significant funds and may even be planning an IPO. At this stage, tokenization may not be very attractive to the founders, but it is very valuable for employees. Many large companies have thousands or even tens of thousands of employees, but without a clear expectation of liquidity from an IPO or exit, there is no predictable channel for liquidity. At this point, they will want to realize some liquidity and diversify their assets. This creates a strong practical motivation for tokenization.

There are indeed some "secondary markets for employee equity," such as EquityZen and Forge, which actively contact employees to help them transfer shares. But the biggest problem with these platforms is that liquidity is fragmented. The platforms have to match buyers and sellers themselves, which is inefficient. The advantage of crypto lies in interoperability. As long as you put the assets on-chain and turn them into freely tradable tokens, you can immediately access global liquidity. This is precisely where tokenization as a technological solution is most powerful.

Bankless: Indeed, many trends are pushing in this direction. And companies like SpaceX and OpenAI, which are private and clearly have no interest in going public, are indicative of this. Many AI private companies are the same—they do not have publicly traded equity and are not as large as Meta or Google, where stock purchases face dilution issues, making it difficult for investors to truly bet on the AI track.

Vlad Tenev: For ordinary investors, the options to bet on AI are very limited. You might only be able to buy NVIDIA (but its market cap has exceeded a trillion), Alphabet (also a trillion-dollar company), and Tesla. Of course, they are all too large and have already reflected most of the AI premium. But you cannot invest in core AI startups like OpenAI, Anthropic, or Perplexity.

Bankless: Yes, just look at the current trends in the public market—you can see that new investment opportunities are increasingly not appearing in the public market but are concentrated in the private market. Part of the reason for this, as I mentioned earlier, is that the compliance costs of IPOs are rising, making it increasingly difficult to cross that threshold. Meanwhile, crypto is providing a potential solution. I see many favorable winds pushing this trend toward its conclusion: private market equity tokenization may ultimately become some form of "quasi-public market."

Alright, I also want to talk about prediction markets because I remember Robinhood has recently ventured into this area. Didn't you once have a slogan that said "Everything Can Be Marketed"? Or am I mistaken? Is this your official strategic direction, or is it just an external impression? Can you help me clarify this?

Robinhood Enters Prediction Markets

Vlad Tenev: Actually, Robinhood has not officially used the slogan "Everything Can Be Marketed."

Bankless: So that was indeed something I imagined.

Vlad Tenev: However, our parent company is called Robinhood Markets, and you may have heard our mission slogan: to democratize finance for all. This means we believe in the power of markets; if a market exists, we believe we should facilitate its operation and allow traders to participate. Especially for markets that were originally only open to institutions, if retail investors are interested, we believe they should also be able to participate in a fair environment. This is actually one of our goals in "creating markets," and this certainly applies to prediction markets.

Personally, I believe prediction markets have an additional social value: they are not just trading venues; they can also provide more accurate event predictions. We have seen this in presidential elections—while mainstream media is still watching, prediction markets have already provided directional judgments hours or even days in advance. I believe we will see this trend in more areas in the future. So I think prediction markets are a kind of "truth machine," an evolution of traditional news—sometimes even able to "see the news" before events occur, which is very interesting.

Bankless: I also, like many others, hosted a presidential election party. The mainstream media was on TV, but most of my friends were crypto industry professionals, so besides showing mainstream media, we specifically opened a Polymarket page on the screen. As a result, everyone kept switching between mainstream media and Polymarket to check the data—Polymarket felt more "real-time" and closer to the truth.

Recently, Robinhood also made a move regarding prediction markets. Let me read the press release to introduce this topic: Robinhood recently launched a prediction market section within its app, allowing users to trade on the outcomes of major global events. At launch, the contracts available for users to trade included "the upper limit of the Federal Reserve's federal funds rate in May" and contracts related to the "men's and women's NCAA basketball championships." These seem to be two completely different types of markets. So, the first question I already know the answer to—what was the original intention behind launching prediction markets? But more importantly, this product is powered by Kalshi. Can you introduce Kalshi's role in this collaboration?

Vlad Tenev: Sure, Kalshi is a DCM (Designated Contract Market), and its role is similar to that of an exchange in the stock market. For example, in the stock market, we have NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange. Robinhood, as a broker, connects with these exchanges or market makers to facilitate trades, and the trading is completed on the exchange. In the stock domain, Robinhood acts as a broker, bringing in brokers and clearing brokers, sending orders to exchanges or market makers. In the futures market, which is regulated by the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), the DCM plays the role of the exchange. Robinhood's role in this prediction market is as an FCM (Futures Commission Merchant), where we deal with customers, provide interfaces, order channels, and then route orders to the DCM for matching.

You can think of Kalshi as NASDAQ, while we are the traditional broker. For contracts related to the presidential election, we are connecting with another DCM called ForecastEx, which is a subsidiary of Interactive Brokers. We can actually connect with multiple DCMs to provide users with access to different contracts. However, all the prediction market contracts we offer must be officially listed by the DCM before we can launch them.

Bankless: So, Robinhood itself cannot launch its own prediction market but can only connect through third-party DCMs, right?

Vlad Tenev: That's correct. The reason Polymarket cannot operate compliantly in the U.S. is primarily that it is not a DCM. They operate prediction markets in a completely decentralized, crypto-based manner. But this is precisely one of the issues that the market structure legislation we mentioned earlier aims to address: who should regulate prediction markets like Polymarket within the U.S. regulatory framework? Should they be managed according to CFTC's commodity contracts? Or should there be a new regulatory framework specifically for "crypto versions" of prediction markets? Currently, these questions do not have clear answers, and only after legislation progresses can such markets be legally established in the U.S.

Bankless: I think our audience would definitely hope to use Polymarket legally in the U.S. So, the last question about prediction markets: currently, Robinhood has launched prediction markets for "federal funds rate" and "college basketball games." What new prediction trading products can we expect next? Can you reveal Robinhood's next steps?

Vlad Tenev: With the latest batch of prediction market contracts launched, we have upgraded from being able to launch only one contract at a time to being able to launch hundreds simultaneously. This involves complexities related to clearing, settlement, and dependencies between contract structures, especially for series contracts like the men's and women's NCAA basketball championships, which have greatly tested our system. Next, we will soon have the capability to launch thousands of contracts at once, which will completely unlock the diversity and potential of prediction markets.

We are excited about many areas, especially the development of artificial intelligence. There are some interesting prediction markets surrounding advancements in AI technology that can indeed provide insights, and our users are very interested in this. But more importantly, I believe prediction markets should become a "new type of newspaper." For example, it should include "front-page news" (what people are most concerned about right now), as well as sections like "sports," "business," and "lifestyle." Prediction markets can become a microcosm of this information—a news form driven by real trading intentions.

Bankless: Yes, "prediction markets as truth machines" is why many crypto users are so fascinated by them. A typical example was the conflict between Israel and Iran; when missiles began crossing borders, the prediction markets on Polymarket provided very cutting-edge, real information. These events not only involve sensitive geopolitical issues but are also high-risk, high-impact events. We are entering an increasingly turbulent global situation, and ordinary people naturally want to better understand the probabilities of these possibilities occurring. How do you see Robinhood potentially integrating such global macro and geopolitical-related prediction markets in the future?

Vlad Tenev: I believe this is valuable for society as a whole. Currently, the CFTC has certain guidelines for "event contracts" (i.e., prediction markets), such as clearly stating: "Prediction markets that do not serve the public interest should not be listed for trading." However, this "contradiction to public interest" is actually a vague and broad concept. I believe we should try to clarify this limitation because I believe that the vast majority of prediction markets are fundamentally in the public interest.

Three Product Lines

Robinhood Banking Product Line

Bankless: Back to the topic of Robinhood. You recently held a large launch event, similar to a Robinhood summit, where you introduced three new product lines: Robinhood Strategies, Robinhood Banking, and Robinhood Cortex. Let's discuss them one by one, starting with the one I'm most interested in: Robinhood Banking. What is the motivation behind this product? How did you initially conceive it?

Vlad Tenev: The core idea of this Gold event is that we want to provide all users with the same resources and services as high-net-worth individuals. High-net-worth clients typically have private banking advisors, investment advisors, and research teams who can help clients find opportunities globally (whether in public or private markets). Technology now allows us to provide this "family office-level service" to ordinary users at a very low cost. This is precisely the direction we want to achieve—putting a high-net-worth family's financial team in every user's pocket, allowing Gold members to enjoy this service for just $5 a month. What we want to do is not just provide financial services but to create a "financial product like an iPhone"—a high-end product that everyone can afford and be proud to own.

So, the three products we launched at the Gold event actually follow a complete mainline logic: Strategies is your digital investment advisor; Cortex is your intelligent research assistant; and Robinhood Banking is your private banker. This is also the first time Robinhood has launched AI products. In the future, you will see more cutting-edge reasoning models and intelligent models gradually integrated into the product experience, achieving deep interconnection between products and truly providing an intelligent financial service experience.

Robinhood Cortex Product Line

Bankless: When I read the announcement about Robinhood Cortex, I initially thought you were launching an AI agent. After reading more carefully, I understood it better. Why don't you give an example of how users actually use Cortex? I guess you have integrated it into the Robinhood mobile app, so is it like a ChatGPT specifically for the financial field? Can you elaborate on what kind of product it is?

Vlad Tenev: Currently, within the Robinhood App, Cortex has two main functional scenarios: the first is answering "what is happening with a particular stock right now." We often send push notifications to users, such as when a stock rises or falls more than 5%. Many users will then click in to see what is happening with that stock. Cortex will explain the reasons driving the current price fluctuations on the stock's detail page, providing as clear an explanation as possible.

The second scenario is related to options trading. Options are very complex for most people, especially when it involves multi-leg strategy combinations that require a lot of professional judgment. Cortex, using the Trade Builder feature, can automatically construct suitable options strategy combinations based on your predictions for a particular stock's future movements, making the entire experience very magical. We demonstrated this at the Gold event: users select a stock, input their predictions, and the system generates options strategies that can be traded directly or enters our new feature—the parallel options chain view, making it very efficient to operate multiple options trades on one screen.

Bankless: It sounds like this process involves expressing trading intentions in natural language, and the AI processes it and provides several suggested options combinations. Is that essentially "translating" human language into strategy execution suggestions? Is the logic like that?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, but we don't just match based on your language input. We also integrate various external data, such as real-time market data, technical indicators, news, etc., to help you better form your predictions. In other words, we not only provide strategies based on your existing predictions but also assist you in making more accurate predictions.

Bankless: Can you talk about the underlying structure of this LLM (large language model)? I guess you are not just using a ChatGPT shell, right? Does it have any special data or training methods that make it a truly finance-centric AI based on Robinhood?

Vlad Tenev: That's correct. Most general-purpose LLMs do not have real-time financial data; their data is often lagging. Therefore, they cannot tell you the "current" price of a stock, nor can they accurately explain the reasons for price fluctuations. More seriously, they can easily generate hallucinations in the financial field due to a lack of accurate data support. The AI layer we developed solves the hallucination problem and the real-time data issue, which are two major shortcomings of traditional LLMs.

Bankless: Yes, if AI in the financial field generates hallucinations, the consequences could be disastrous.

Vlad Tenev: Indeed. But the advantage of finance is that we have a "data truth source." Unlike writing a history paper where it's hard to say whether there are hallucinations, financial data has clear standards, and we can set up "guardrails" to accurately identify and correct "hallucinations."

Bankless: And this may be Robinhood's core competitive advantage in making a financial AI assistant: you not only have real-time market data but also user behavior data and all the contextual data from financial scenarios.

Vlad Tenev: Yes, that's a significant advantage. Another point is that we can complete trading operations within the app. If we can make Cortex "context-aware" of user behavior scenarios, it will become even more valuable. We don't want to just put a chat box in the app; that kind of thing is hard to use, produces lengthy outputs, and is prone to hallucinations. That would be a very naive approach, and we deliberately avoid going down that path.

Robinhood Strategies Product Line

Bankless: Let's return to Strategies for a moment: are you considering expanding this product to include crypto assets in the future? Because everyone involved in crypto is often asked by those around them, "How should I buy coins?" "How should I allocate?"—but people actually don't know how to answer. If Strategies could provide intelligent allocation suggestions for crypto assets, wouldn't that be particularly valuable? How do you plan to expand into this area?

Vlad Tenev: Technically, there is no problem at all. We have a long list of features, perhaps dozens or even hundreds, that we are considering. Right now, we are primarily looking at what users want the most. We chose to start with individual stocks because most digital investment advisor platforms only support ETFs, while our core supports both individual stocks and ETFs in investment portfolios. At the same time, we designed a very nice interface, such as a pie chart showing your asset allocation ratios and helping you automatically rebalance, achieving an "almost hands-off investment experience." As for crypto assets, we actually considered integrating them during the launch phase, and we will definitely gradually incorporate them in the future. We have already launched, and users can directly experience it; the feedback has been very positive, with many people starting to migrate their investment portfolios over.

Additionally, our Strategies have a significant differentiating advantage: we have completely overturned the traditional advisory platform's fee structure. Traditional advisors typically charge based on the percentage of assets under management. Traditional advisors charge about 1%, and the cheapest robo-advisors charge at least 0.25%. This creates a problem: the more you invest, the fees grow linearly, but the service does not improve correspondingly. For example, a robo-advisor managing one million dollars is not ten times more complex than managing one hundred thousand dollars. But you have to pay ten times the fees. This has made high-net-worth users increasingly dissatisfied. Our designed strategy product has a fee cap: it charges a maximum of $250. Regardless of your asset size, the fees will no longer continue to grow. This way, the more assets a person has, the more cost-effective it is to use Robinhood Strategies, and they will be more satisfied.

Bankless: Your Strategies have a fee cap of $250, which means you are not charging based on AUM (assets under management). Does this mean Robinhood is more inclined to treat this product as a "user number-driven" business? How does Robinhood benefit from the large-scale growth of Strategies?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, this fee model is actually a significant incentive—it will attract users with substantial external assets to transfer their funds to the Robinhood platform. Robinhood can benefit in several ways: asset management fees and Robinhood Gold subscription fees.

Moreover, we have observed that once users become Gold members and transfer a significant amount of funds, say $1,000, they will begin to truly feel the value of the platform and are more likely to use more of our services, such as credit cards and self-trading. This is the goal we want to achieve—to "migrate" the user's entire financial relationship to Robinhood, allowing them to conveniently manage all their funds. As the total amount of funds on the platform increases, our revenue will also grow accordingly.

Cash Delivery Service

Bankless: Got it. I also want to ask about your new product—the cash delivery service. When I saw this feature, my reaction was: is this the "Uber Eats" of cash? Why are you doing this? How does it work?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, we are indeed entering the "logistics business," which is quite interesting for me personally. First of all, this is a high-end private banking service. Robinhood does not have physical branches, so we asked ourselves: how can we provide customers with a full digital banking experience without discounts? Although cash payments are declining, they still account for 16% of all payments in the U.S., and many people still need cash. But if you are using a purely digital bank, you can only go to 7-11 or CVS to withdraw money. Clearly, "going to a convenience store to withdraw cash" is completely contrary to the "private banking experience."

We asked ourselves, can we turn this around—let the bank "come to the door"? Logistics platforms are now very mature, delivering in 15 minutes, and you can even have an iPhone delivered directly to your door. So, what we want to do is apply this model to cash services.

Of course, we will not build a complete logistics system ourselves but will collaborate with professional partners, and we will announce this partnership soon. Although it is complex, we believe it will bring tremendous value. I used to be a customer of First Republic, which offered a "cash delivery" service (though they used armored cars to transport large amounts of cash). We are thinking about how to standardize this "service exclusive to the wealthy" so that more people can afford it.

Bankless: I guess the minimum withdrawal amount you set won't be something like $100, right?

Vlad Tenev: We set a minimum delivery amount of $200 during the demonstration. However, we are still in the exploratory phase, and the specific minimum amount, user behavior, average withdrawal amounts, and other data will depend on user feedback after launch. But we expect the average amount may fall within the range of several hundred dollars.

Robinhood's Next Stop: Product Matrix and Ecosystem Layout

Bankless: Back to the crypto topic. Currently, Robinhood has relatively few crypto assets; do you have plans to expand to more coins?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, since the regulatory environment has improved, we have actually launched quite a few assets, such as Trump Coin, which we launched on inauguration day and was very popular. Now, thousands of new coins are being created every week. We also realize that we need to rethink our asset listing strategy. You should see Robinhood Wallet (our on-chain wallet product)—currently somewhat disconnected from the main app—but in the future, it will be more integrated with the main app.

You will see: the main app gaining more on-chain functionalities; Wallet withdrawals and deposits becoming smoother; and the gradual integration of Custody + DeFi products. As the industry matures, our strategy will shift from "carefully selecting listed assets" to "efficient optimization based on backend demand," allowing customers to choose independently. However, we must also establish screening mechanisms to avoid fostering speculative bubbles and prevent users from accessing high-risk junk coins under conditions of information asymmetry.

Bankless: So you now have Robinhood Wallet, the main Robinhood App, and Robinhood Credit Card, which is now part of Robinhood Banking, right?

Vlad Tenev: Yes, the Robinhood Credit Card has now been integrated into Robinhood Banking.

Bankless: Is the division of labor among these three applications primarily due to compliance/regulatory considerations? Is there any thought of integrating them into a "super financial app"?

Vlad Tenev: Initially, we did want to create an "integrated app," but the problem is that—how to design the homepage becomes too important. Active traders and users of credit card/banking functions have completely different expectations for the homepage. Moreover, most users indeed treat the "trading interface" and "banking interface" separately in their minds.

So, whether to integrate, I am open to it. We can try to create a super app, but I am not fixated on "having to merge." More importantly: unified KYC; seamless fund movement between accounts. Beyond that, let the best interface win. Our main app may add more functionalities, and we do not rule out allowing different teams to create independent apps, even splitting and merging like Uber and Uber Eats.

Bankless: Finally, I want to chat more freely. You know our show is called Bankless, advocating for "debanking," emphasizing asset self-custody and self-management. Yet Robinhood has many features that sound quite "bank-like," such as your plans to launch banking products. Crypto indeed challenges traditional finance, like Wells Fargo, which only offers a 0.25% savings rate and lacks innovation. But Robinhood does provide better options, and you are not "completely Bankless." So I want to ask:

Vlad Tenev: "How Bankless am I, really?" Right?

Bankless: Yes, how Bankless are you? Where is Robinhood headed in the future?

Vlad Tenev: Actually, we are literally Bankless right now; we do not have a banking license. Sometimes people ask me: do you want to apply for a banking license? Because we are often compared to traditional financial companies that have banking licenses. Having a license has some benefits, such as direct access to FedWire, Zelle, etc.; being able to issue loans, conduct clearing, and other businesses.

But currently, our strategy is to cooperate with banks as a neutral platform. For example, in our credit card business, our partner bank is Coastal Community Bank, along with other banks participating in our cash management program. In fact, many DeFi projects essentially also need bank interfaces—because as long as you want to convert fiat currency into on-chain assets, the bank is a part of that link.

I believe more "crypto banks" will emerge in the future—those that have certain licenses, are regulated, but are not as heavily burdened as traditional banks. These banks can manage funds, reserves, and other key aspects, avoiding the past collapses of projects that "looked like banks but had no real rules," such as Terra Luna, Anchor, Celsius, etc. I have always been a market-oriented person; I believe in free competition and fair regulation. These two worlds—traditional banking and crypto technology—will ultimately merge rather than be separated.