Robinhood Achieves Best Performance in History, Why Did Its Stock Price Halve?

比推Published on 2026-02-11Last updated on 2026-02-11

Abstract

Robinhood reported its best-ever annual performance in 2025, with revenue reaching $4.5 billion, a 52% year-over-year increase. Despite strong results in options trading, equities, and subscription services, its stock price fell nearly 50% from its October peak. The decline was largely driven by a significant drop in cryptocurrency trading revenue, which fell 38% year-over-year to $221 million in Q4, as lower Bitcoin prices reduced retail trading activity. Monthly active users also declined by 1.9 million. While Robinhood is diversifying into new products and expanding internationally to reduce crypto dependency, its near-term performance remains tied to cryptocurrency market sentiment and volatility.

Written by: Ada, Deep Tide TechFlow

Original title: Robinhood Achieved Its Best Performance in History, But the Stock Price Fell by Nearly Half


Robinhood is experiencing a peculiar split.

After the U.S. stock market closed on February 10, this retail trading platform delivered a seemingly impeccable report card: full-year revenue of $4.5 billion, a year-on-year increase of 52%, reaching a record high. Diluted earnings per share were $2.05. Net deposits for 2025 hit a record $68 billion, with $16 billion in the fourth quarter. The number of Robinhood Gold subscribers reached a record 4.2 million.

CEO Vlad Tenev was triumphant during the earnings call: "We are building a financial super app."

But the stock price fell 7% after hours. Combined with the decline this year, Robinhood's stock price has halved from its peak last October. A company that just achieved its best performance in history saw its market capitalization evaporate by half in four months.

What's the problem?

Looking closely at the earnings report, cryptocurrency trading revenue: $221 million, a sharp year-on-year drop of 38%.

This figure was $357 million in the same period last year and $268 million in the previous quarter. By Q4, the crypto trading volume on the Robinhood App had halved to $34 billion.

Retail traders have stopped trading. Bitcoin fell from $126,000 to $65,000, and FOMO (fear of missing out) has disappeared, replaced by fear. Opening the app reveals a sea of red instead of green, and closing the app has become the most rational choice.

This is Robinhood's dilemma: its core business is improving, but the market is only focused on the part that is deteriorating.

How Much Did Crypto Contribute to the $4.5 Billion Revenue?

Breaking down Robinhood's revenue structure reveals an ongoing identity shift.

Q4 trading commission revenue was $776 million, a year-on-year increase of 15%. Among this, options trading contributed $314 million, up 41%; stock trading contributed $94 million, up 54%; other trading revenue was $147 million, tripling. The only drag was crypto, which plummeted from $358 million to $221 million.

Net interest income was $411 million, up 39%, primarily driven by growth in interest-earning assets and securities lending activities. Gold membership subscription revenue was $50 million, up 56%.

For the full year, the proportion of crypto trading revenue in total revenue has dropped from around 35% in Q4 2024 to 17% in Q4 2025.

Robinhood is well aware of this trend.

Over the past year, it has aggressively expanded its product categories: the prediction market saw 12 billion contract trades in its first year, with trading volume more than doubling in the fourth quarter alone; futures trading now covers stock indices, energy, metals, and crypto; the number of Gold Card holders is approaching 1 million.

As early as the Q3 2025 earnings call, the management stated: "We now have 11 business lines with annualized revenue exceeding $100 million."

The message is: don't just focus on crypto. But Wall Street is fixated on crypto.

A Brokerage Living in Bitcoin's Shadow

This brings to mind Strategy's earnings report five days ago.

Strategy reported a net loss of $12.4 billion for the quarter, almost entirely due to unrealized impairments from Bitcoin's price drop in Q4. Saylor doesn't care; he says Bitcoin's decline is a gift, and every pullback is a buying opportunity.

Robinhood's situation is the opposite. It doesn't hold Bitcoin, doesn't bear price risk, and doesn't rely on issuing debt to buy coins to stay afloat. It is merely a trading platform that earns fees.

But when Bitcoin falls, retail traders stop trading, and the revenue from fees disappears.

Strategy relies on Bitcoin's price direction. Robinhood relies on Bitcoin's volatility. The two companies appear entirely different, but at their core, they depend on the same thing: retail sentiment toward cryptocurrencies.

Strategy bets on price direction; Robinhood bets on casino traffic. In other words, when Bitcoin falls, the casino empties out. Both models lose.

Data confirms this judgment. Strategy's MSTR fell 76%, acting as a 1.6x leveraged bet on Bitcoin. Robinhood's stock price fell about 50% from its peak last October, while Bitcoin fell 48% over the same period. The two curves almost overlap.

One is a leveraged long position on Bitcoin; the other is an at-the-money call option on Bitcoin. The underlying asset is the same: the temperature of the crypto market.

The Trap of "Record-Breaking"

The word "record-breaking" appears multiple times in Robinhood's earnings report. Record annual revenue, record adjusted EBITDA, record net deposited funds, record Gold membership numbers, record EPS.

These numbers are all true.

Strategy's earnings report also says "record-breaking." Record Bitcoin holdings. Record cash reserves. Record BTC Yield. But its stock price fell 76%.

"Record-breaking" is a medal in a bull market and an epitaph in a bear market. It only describes your state at the peak, not what happens next.

Robinhood's Q4 reveals a key metric: monthly active users (MAU) dropped from 14.9 million in the same period last year to 13 million, a decrease of 1.9 million.

Users are leaving.

The assets under custody on the platform increased by 68% year-on-year, but that's due to market capitalization膨胀 from rising stock and crypto prices. The annualized growth rate of net deposited funds has slowed from over 30% at the beginning of the year to 19% in Q4. This means the inflow of money is slowing down. People are decreasing.

This is structurally the same problem Strategy faces. In a bull market, all metrics reinforce each other: prices rise, trading is active, revenue increases, users grow, stock prices rise. In a bear market, every环节 reverses.

The flywheel can spin backward. Robinhood has its own flywheel.

De-Cryptoization: A High-Stakes Gamble

Robinhood clearly knows this. Over the past 12 months, Robinhood's strategy can be summarized in one sentence: reduce reliance on cryptocurrency while doubling down on cryptocurrency infrastructure.

It sounds contradictory, but the logic is clear.

On the revenue side, aggressively pursue diversification. Prediction markets, futures, short selling, Gold Card, banking services, retirement accounts, international expansion, etc.

On the infrastructure side, aggressively deepen. Last year, it acquired Bitstamp, the world's longest-running crypto exchange, and trading volume has already doubled. Launched 2,000 tokenized stocks in Europe. Signed acquisition agreements for brokerages and crypto platforms in Indonesia.

Robinhood learned from Coinbase's 2022 lesson.

Coinbase nearly died in the last bear market because its revenue structure was too单一. Armstrong spent two years rebuilding. Tenev is trying to achieve diversification before the bear market arrives.

But time is not on his side. Robinhood's adjusted operating expenses and equity incentive budget for 2026 is $2.6 billion to $2.725 billion, an increase of about 18% year-on-year. This money will be spent on international expansion, new product development, and acquisition integration. If the crypto winter persists and growth in the traditional brokerage business is not fast enough, cost expansion coupled with slowing revenue will squeeze profit margins.

With approximately $4.3 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand, it can burn for a long time. But like Strategy, "surviving" and "growing" are two different things.

The Thermometer in the Crypto Winter

Looking at Strategy's and Robinhood's earnings reports together, you see two ways Bitcoin's bear market plays out.

Strategy is a chronic illness. Bitcoin doesn't rise, the flywheel stops, but the $2.25 billion in cash can last two and a half years. It has time, but time consumes faith.

Robinhood is an acute reaction. Crypto revenue plummeted 38% in one quarter, MAU lost 1.9 million, but other businesses are still growing. It won't die, but it will hurt.

The commonality between the two companies is: they cannot control the most critical variable in their destiny.

Strategy cannot control Bitcoin's price. Robinhood cannot control retail sentiment. And retail sentiment, ultimately, is determined by Bitcoin's price.

Everyone in this industry pretends they have Alpha, but in reality, everyone only has Beta. Beta is Bitcoin. When Bitcoin rises, everyone is a genius. When Bitcoin falls, everyone is naked swimming.

Robinhood did set records in 2025, but no number of records seems to掩盖 the pain brought by the decline in the crypto business.

Tenev now faces a question with no standard answer.

Current Robinhood is like a casino owner who has started to quit gambling. He knows the problem, he is taking action, but the dividends gained in the bull market have all turned into debts in the bear market.

For Robinhood, the real test is not the records in the bull market, but the floor in the bear market.

Where is the floor? No one knows yet.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7611079

Related Questions

QWhy did Robinhood's stock price drop by nearly 50% despite reporting record annual revenue and earnings?

ARobinhood's stock price dropped significantly because its cryptocurrency trading revenue plummeted by 38% year-over-year in Q4, and monthly active users (MAU) decreased by 1.9 million. The market is primarily focused on the declining crypto segment, which saw trading volume halve, rather than the overall strong performance in other areas like options and stock trading.

QWhat was the contribution of cryptocurrency trading revenue to Robinhood's total revenue in Q4 2025?

ACryptocurrency trading revenue contributed $221 million, accounting for approximately 17% of Robinhood's total revenue in Q4 2025. This is a significant decrease from around 35% in Q4 2024.

QHow is Robinhood's dependence on cryptocurrency market volatility similar to MicroStrategy's reliance on Bitcoin?

ABoth Robinhood and MicroStrategy are heavily dependent on cryptocurrency market sentiment, but in different ways. MicroStrategy acts as a leveraged bet on Bitcoin's price direction, while Robinhood relies on Bitcoin's volatility to drive trading activity and transaction fees. When Bitcoin prices fall, both companies suffer: MicroStrategy faces unrealized losses, and Robinhood experiences reduced trading volume and user engagement.

QWhat strategies is Robinhood implementing to reduce its reliance on cryptocurrency trading?

ARobinhood is diversifying its revenue streams by expanding into new product categories such as prediction markets, futures trading, short selling, Gold Card, banking services, retirement accounts, and international expansion. It is also strengthening its crypto infrastructure through acquisitions like Bitstamp and expanding tokenized stock offerings in Europe.

QWhat key metric indicates a slowdown in Robinhood's user growth and fund inflows despite record overall performance?

AMonthly active users (MAU) decreased by 1.9 million year-over-year to 13 million in Q4 2025. Additionally, the annualized growth rate of net deposits slowed to 19% in Q4, down from over 30% earlier in the year, indicating a deceleration in new money inflows even as total assets under custody increased due to market appreciation.

Related Reads

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit1h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

**Title: Has Bitcoin's Rebound Ended, Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?** **Summary:** Bitcoin's price has declined by 13% this week, signaling a potential return to late-stage bear market conditions. The price fell to around $67k, positioned between the Realized Price and Realized Cap Weighted Average. For the first time since early 2022, the Short-Term Holder cost basis has dropped below this key average, confirming a hallmark of late-cycle bear markets. Profitability metrics have collapsed sharply. The 7-day average of the Realized Profit/Loss ratio plummeted from a local high of 3.16 to 0.29, mirroring the February panic sell-off. Critically, the 90-day average never breached the threshold of 2, indicating the recent rally to $82k was a bear market bounce, not a structural shift. Realized losses surged to $1.35 billion daily, with $770 million coming from Long-Term Holders selling at a loss. This accelerating redistribution of supply from weak to strong hands is a necessary but ongoing process for a market bottom. The rally stalled almost precisely at the aggregate cost basis (~$83k) of US spot Bitcoin ETF investors, turning that level into strong resistance and leaving the average ETF holder underwater again. Spot market flows have turned decisively negative, showing sellers are dominating order books despite the price drop. While a significant futures long liquidation event cleared over $400 million in leverage, providing a potential reset, sustained spot demand is yet to materialize. Options markets continue to price in higher future volatility (Implied Volatility) than recent price action (Realized Volatility) has shown, with a persistent skew towards put options, indicating ongoing demand for downside protection. In conclusion, multiple metrics point to a fragile market structure. Resistance at the ETF cost basis, accelerating realized losses, dominant spot selling, and cautious options pricing all suggest the bear market trend persists. A sustainable recovery likely requires a resurgence of spot demand, ETF holders returning to profit, and a clear reduction in selling pressure.

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

marsbit1h ago

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

In today's TechFlow Intelligence Briefing, several major tech stories highlight a growing theme of trust and credibility gaps across AI, crypto, and finance. AI company Anthropic has publicly called for a global pause in AI development, citing risks from Claude's "recursive self-improvement." Ironically, this coincides with reports the company is preparing for a massive IPO targeting a near $1 trillion valuation. This perceived hypocrisy, coupled with widespread user complaints about Claude's declining performance, is sparking debate over whether the safety warning is genuine or a competitive tactic. Meanwhile, in a substantive security move, Anthropic open-sourced a framework for AI-powered vulnerability discovery. In the crypto market, Bitcoin's price drop below $61,000 triggered over $1.16 billion in liquidations, flipping the market into a state where more BTC is held at a loss than at a profit, a historical bearish signal. On the corporate front, SpaceX's highly anticipated IPO is generating immense Wall Street excitement, with Goldman Sachs projecting 100x revenue growth by 2030. However, the S&P 500 has refused to fast-track the company's inclusion post-IPO, potentially limiting immediate institutional demand. Separately, ByteDance's AI app Doubao lost over 6 million monthly active users after introducing a subscription model, highlighting the challenges of AI monetization. Other notable developments include Nvidia certifying HBM4 memory from Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron; Cloudflare's acquisition of front-end tooling company VoidZero; and its CEO warning that bot traffic now exceeds human traffic online. The underlying narrative connects these events: a trust crisis. From AI firms' contradictory actions and crypto volatility to the clash between SpaceX's hyped narrative and institutional rules, a pattern is emerging where stated intentions and actual practices are increasingly misaligned.

marsbit1h ago

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ADA (ADA) are presented below.

活动图片