Robinhood Q1 营收利润均不及预期,加密交易收入暴跌 47%,盘后跌超 6%

marsbit2026-04-29 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-04-29 tarihinde güncellendi

作者:克洛德,深潮 TechFlow

深潮导读:Robinhood 一季度营收 10.7 亿美元、每股收益 0.38 美元,均低于华尔街预期。罪魁祸首是加密交易收入同比暴跌 47%至 1.34 亿美元,但预测市场合约交易量创纪录达 88 亿份、收入飙升 320%,正成为新的增长引擎。公司上调全年运营费用指引 1 亿美元用于建设「特朗普账户」,股价盘后最高跌超 8%。

Robinhood 交出了一份「好坏参半但偏差」的一季度成绩单。

据 Robinhood 4 月 28 日盘后发布的财报,公司一季度总净营收 10.7 亿美元,同比增长 15%,但低于分析师预期的 11.4 亿美元(彭博综合预期);稀释每股收益 0.38 美元,同比增长 3%,低于市场预期的 0.42 美元。净利润 3.46 亿美元,同比仅增 3%,为过去一年最低季度利润。

消息公布后,HOOD 股价盘后最深跌约 8%,随后跌幅略有收窄,盘后交易价格约 81.35 美元。截至财报发布前,HOOD 年内累计下跌约 27%,远低于去年 153.86 美元的 52 周高点。

加密收入近乎腰斩,成最大拖累项

加密交易收入同比下降 47%至 1.34 亿美元,去年同期为 2.52 亿美元。加密名义交易量同比下降 48%至 240 亿美元。这是 Robinhood 各交易品类中跌幅最深的板块,也是本季度业绩不及预期的核心原因。

这一颓势并非突然出现。去年四季度,公司加密交易收入已同比下降 38%至 2.21 亿美元,一季度进一步恶化,反映出 2025 年末开始并延续至 2026 年初的加密市场整体低迷。一季度全球加密货币总市值同比下降约 20.4%,价格下跌与交易量萎缩形成双杀。

CEO Vlad Tenev 在财报电话会上试图将叙事从币价波动中抽离。据 CoinDesk 报道,他表示「我不想再讨论比特币的价格」,Robinhood 更关注的是将加密技术作为金融服务的「基础设施」来运用。他进一步提出了「代币化超级周期」的概念,称公司正处于将股票等资产搬上区块链的早期阶段。

预测市场爆发式增长,「其他交易收入」飙升 320%

加密收入坍塌的另一面,是预测市场的爆发。

「其他交易收入」(主要为事件合约)同比飙升 320%至 1.47 亿美元,一季度事件合约交易量达创纪录的 88 亿份。这一品类的收入规模已超过加密交易收入,成为 Robinhood 增长最快的交易业务线。

据 DeFi Rate 报道,CFO Shiv Verma 在电话会上表示,4 月预测市场交易量「有望达到约 30 亿份合约,可能是有史以来第二高的月份」。

Robinhood 正在加速这一赛道的垂直整合。公司与做市商 Susquehanna International Group 合资建立的 Rothera 交易所计划在二季度上线,届时 Robinhood 将可以自主上架和清算事件合约,而非依赖 Kalshi 等第三方交易所。Tenev 将此描述为「端到端控制客户体验」的关键一步,包括产品选择和定价权。

在传统交易品类中,股票交易收入 8200 万美元,同比增长 46%;期权交易收入 2.6 亿美元,同比增长 8%。交易类总收入 6.23 亿美元,同比增长 7%,增速因加密拖累而显著放缓。

用户与资产规模续创新高,Gold 订阅成亮点

财报中不乏亮点,主要集中在用户与资产指标上。

一季度净存入资金 177 亿美元,年化增速 22%;平台总资产 3070 亿美元,同比增长 39%。Gold 订阅用户达到创纪录的 430 万,同比增长 36%,增加 120 万。Gold 在付费用户中的渗透率从 2024 年初的 7%攀升至 15.8%。付费客户总数 2740 万,同比增长 6%;投资账户数 2910 万,同比增长 8%。

收入结构也在发生转变。净利息收入同比增长 24%,订阅驱动的「其他收入」同比增长 57%。Gold 订阅的年化收入达 2 亿美元。这意味着 Robinhood 对交易收入的依赖度正在下降,但下降速度能否对冲加密周期波动,仍是市场关注的焦点。

「特朗普账户」推高运营支出,全年费用指引上调 1 亿美元

Robinhood 本季度最大的新变量是「特朗普账户」(Trump Accounts)。公司将全年调整后运营费用和股权激励指引从此前的 26 亿至 27.25 亿美元上调至 27 亿至 28.25 亿美元,增加的 1 亿美元用于构建和支持特朗普账户的用户界面。

据 Yahoo Finance 报道,CFO Verma 在电话会上表示,其中约一半将在二季度发生。该项目以「成本加成」模式签约,公司预计收入将超过成本。Tenev 将此定位为触达「下一代投资者,6000 万人」的入口。

一季度整体运营费用为 6.56 亿美元,同比增长 18%,主要由营销和增长投资以及收购相关费用驱动。调整后 EBITDA 为 5.34 亿美元,同比增长 14%。

此外,公司一季度回购了 2.5 亿美元股票,均价约 81 美元/股,董事会 3 月将回购授权额度刷新至 15 亿美元。

二季度开局强劲,但加密叙事转向尚待验证

管理层对二季度开局释放了乐观信号。据 Robinhood 官方新闻稿,Verma 表示 4 月股票和期权交易量有望成为年内最高月份,尽管处于报税季,净存入资金已达到约 50 亿美元。

产品线方面,Robinhood 正在多线推进。除 Rothera 交易所外,公司还在加拿大推出加密服务、新加坡经纪业务,以及持续扩展 AI 工具 Cortex。Robinhood Social 测试版已向 1 万名客户开放,提供经过验证的交易分享和社区互动。此外,公司今年 2 月已上线基于 Arbitrum 的以太坊 L2 区块链「Robinhood Chain」测试网,定位于支持代币化股票和 ETF 的全天候交易。

但市场的核心疑虑在于:预测市场和订阅收入的增长速度,能否持续填补加密收入的缺口?从「40 法则」(Rule of 40,即营收增速加利润率之和)指标看,过去十二个月得分为 98%,虽远超 40%的健康线,但较去年三季度 131%的峰值已回落。据 Sherwood News 分析,HOOD 股价在 2026 年与贝莱德 iShares 比特币信托(IBIT)的相关性甚至高于与标普 500 ETF 的相关性,这意味着只要加密市场持续低迷,Robinhood 的估值修复就面临阻力。

İlgili Okumalar

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 saat önce

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 saat önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 saat önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片