HivemindOS manual

HIVE × Robinhood Chain Bridge

Community review draft — July 20, 2026

We are considering bringing HIVE from Base to Robinhood Chain without creating a second supply or asking the community to fund a new liquidity pool. This draft explains the design so the Base and HIVE communities can challenge it before any mainnet launch.

In short:

  • Base remains HIVE’s home market.
  • HIVE on Robinhood Chain would be backed 1:1 by HIVE locked on Base.
  • No separate, unbacked supply would be minted.
  • No HIVE/ETH pool on Robinhood Chain would be needed at launch.
  • Robinhood users could still buy or sell HIVE through the existing Base market.

How the bridge works

The canonical HIVE contract stays on Base:

Network: Base
Contract: 0xA382c83e2a3B79368f372c2EB9b6925ffAf45bA3
Initial supply: 100,000,000,000 HIVE

Moving HIVE to Robinhood Chain:

  1. Your HIVE is locked in a bridge contract on Base.
  2. The same amount is created for you on Robinhood Chain.

Moving it back:

  1. The Robinhood HIVE is destroyed.
  2. The matching Base HIVE is unlocked for you.

This is a lock-and-mint bridge. Every spendable HIVE on Robinhood Chain has one HIVE locked on Base, so usable supply is never duplicated.

Where the liquidity comes from

The bridge only moves HIVE someone already owns; it needs no trading pool. Buying and selling would use HIVE’s existing Base market instead of a thin second market.

Buying from Robinhood Chain:

User pays ETH or USDG on Robinhood Chain
              ↓
Relay routes the payment to Base
              ↓
The existing Base market sells HIVE
              ↓
The purchased HIVE is bridged back to the user on Robinhood Chain

The HIVE comes from sellers already in the Base market, not from a HivemindOS treasury wallet.

Selling from Robinhood Chain:

User bridges HIVE back to Base
              ↓
The Base market buys the HIVE
              ↓
Relay returns ETH or USDG to the user on Robinhood Chain

At first there would be no local Robinhood HIVE market. Robinhood wallets could hold and transfer HIVE, while trades use Base liquidity through a guided cross-chain flow.

Proposed fees

The current testnet design uses:

  • 0.05% direct bridge fee when HIVE crosses chains.
  • 0.45% routed-trade app fee when the app coordinates a buy or sell through Relay.
  • 0.50% nominal HivemindOS fee for a routed trade that includes one bridge step.

Relay costs, gas, price impact, and provider fees are separate. You would see the complete quote before signing.

The bridge contract permanently caps its own fee at 0.25%. Governance could lower the fee but could not raise it above that cap without replacing the contracts and a new public review. These are proposed launch fees, not a promise that every trade costs exactly 0.50% all-in.

What has been tested

The direct bridge is deployed on Base Sepolia and Robinhood testnet. A real round trip:

  • 1,000 test HIVE moved from Base Sepolia to Robinhood testnet.
  • 999.5 HIVE arrived after the 0.05% bridge fee.
  • The HIVE was bridged back to Base Sepolia.
  • Afterward, the remaining Robinhood supply exactly matched the net HIVE locked on Base.
  • Contract, invariant, recovery, hosted-gateway, and browser tests passed.

Relay supports Base and Robinhood Chain on mainnet, and a read-only quote found a route from Robinhood ETH into the Base HIVE market. Relay does not support Robinhood testnet, so the full buy/sell flow was tested only with controlled simulations. It must pass a small, capped mainnet trial before wider use.

No HIVE mainnet bridge contract has been deployed, and no real mainnet funds have moved.

Safeguards

  • No owner-controlled mint function for Robinhood HIVE.
  • Every Robinhood HIVE must stay backed by locked Base HIVE.
  • Hourly and daily limits cap how much can move in either direction.
  • A guardian can pause the bridge but cannot mint, withdraw backing, or change configuration.
  • Mainnet governance changes must wait at least 72 hours.
  • Bridge fees are tracked separately from backing, so governance cannot withdraw user principal as “fees.”
  • The app accepts only the official HIVE and payment-token addresses.
  • Expired quotes, wrong wallets, wrong networks, duplicate submissions, and excessive price impact are refused.
  • The direct bridge is separate from Relay, so a Relay outage cannot make bridged HIVE unbacked.

Risks

  • Bridge risk: depends on LayerZero messaging, its verification network, and our bridge contracts.
  • Routing risk: one-click trading depends on Relay continuing to support both chains.
  • Market risk: large trades still move the HIVE price on Base. A bridge does not create liquidity or guarantee an exit price.
  • Multi-step risk: a routed trade spans several transactions. The app can save and resume each step, but separate blockchains cannot be made truly atomic.
  • Governance risk: pausing, limits, fee withdrawals, and configuration need transparent multisig and timelock operations.
  • New-chain risk: Robinhood Chain has less production history than Base.

The bridge should launch with conservative limits, public monitoring, and a small real-money trial, not unlimited capacity on day one.

Questions for the community

  1. Does keeping all price discovery and liquidity on Base make sense for the first launch?
  2. Is 0.05% for direct bridging and 0.50% nominally for routed trades reasonable?
  3. Should ETH and USDG both be supported for Robinhood-side buying and selling?
  4. What trade-size and price-impact limits would you want at launch?
  5. What additional audits, monitors, multisig participants, or emergency controls would earn your trust?
  6. Would you prefer direct bridging to launch first, with routed trading enabled only after a separate trial?

This is an infrastructure review draft, not a mainnet launch announcement, a guarantee of liquidity, or financial advice.

Expanded image Scroll to pan · Esc to close
100%