You're Looking At The Wrong Launchpad Metrics 📈 $VIRTUAL is one of the names that comes up in every launchpad conversation. $PUMP is the other, the biggest fee generator in the category by a wide margin. But those margins don't show up if you're browsing DeFillama for launchpads on Robinhood Chain. That's because by default they sort launchpads by TVL, but they should be sorting by fees. That's the story I'm focused on. On DeFiLlama the top launchpad by TVL on Robinhood Chain is Noxa Fun,which has accumulated $17M in fees in the last 30 days. Here's what the view is like further down that list: - Sentry: $37,779 TVL, with $30,986 in fees - Peeps: $26,700 TVL, with just $115 in fees - RH.fun: $1,270 TVL, with $7,489 in fees - Bankr: $0 TVL, with $1.27M in fees (none of which is currently reported on DeFillama) My point is that sorting by TVL rewards a platform for custody, but it says nothing about fee activity, and it misses any non-custodial DeFi platform that never takes custody at all. Bankr is that kind of platform. It helps a team launch its token and assemble the liquidity position, but the liquidity itself sits on Uniswap. The TVL still exists. It just gets counted on Uniswap's side of the ledger instead of Bankr's. The fees tell a different story on Base where Bankr generated $2M in the last 30 days. That ranks Bankr 5th on Base, behind only a handful of protocols like Uniswap, Morpho, and Aerodrome. Virtuals did $117K on Base in that same window, while Binance Alpha did $30K, and Pump generated $81M in fees across 4 chains in 30 days, but almost all of it is Solana volume. Only $36K came from Base, where it actually competes with Bankr. Pump also has nothing like Bankr's self-funding agent model. Every AI agent launched through Bankr gets its own token and wallet, and its trading fees cover its own running costs instead of outsourcing funding. This is how you grow a chain. #DeFi #RobinhoodChain