A glowing green cube on a dark circuit board
Crypto

Standard Chartered Sets $10 ARB Target for 2030 on Tokenization and Revenue Share

The bank points to Robinhood Chain lifting Arbitrum’s September revenue run rate to about $5 million as an early catalyst.

By Emma Carter5 min read

Standard Chartered’s digital assets research head Geoff Kendrick projected Arbitrum’s ARB token could reach $10 by 2030 and potentially outperform Bitcoin and Ether through 2030. The call leans on tokenization-driven demand for layer-2 infrastructure and Arbitrum’s claim to 10% of net protocol revenue from companies building on it.

Standard Chartered Puts a $10 Target on ARB, Citing Outperformance vs BTC and ETH

Standard Chartered has put a $10 price target on Arbitrum’s ARB token for 2030, with the bank’s global head of digital assets research Geoff Kendrick arguing the token could also outperform Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) through 2030.

The immediate market context is stark. ARB was around $0.14 at the time referenced and had gained 86% over the past month, according to CoinGecko data cited alongside the note’s framing. A move to $10 would be roughly a 70-fold increase from that level, which is the kind of upside that only holds together if the underlying driver is something other than generic “L2 adoption.”

Kendrick’s pitch is that Arbitrum is positioned to capture a tokenization cycle in a way that can be expressed as protocol-level economics, not just higher transaction counts. That distinction matters for traders because it shifts the debate from “which rollup has the most activity” to “which rollup can monetize third-party builders in a repeatable way.”

The Mechanism: Tokenization Demand Meets Arbitrum’s 10% Net Protocol Revenue Share

The note’s core mechanism is a revenue-share model tied to companies that build on Arbitrum. Kendrick’s claim is that Arbitrum “receives 10% of the net protocol revenue generated by companies building on it,” which, if it scales, gives ARB a valuation narrative closer to an infrastructure toll than a pure beta token.

Tokenization is the demand engine in that model. Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) have reached nearly $39 billion in cumulative value, according to RWA.xyz data cited in the note, and Standard Chartered reiterated its forecast that tokenized assets could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028 as banks and asset managers bring more assets onchain.

Mechanically, the bet is that traditional finance-linked issuers and consumer-fintech brands will want their own rails, and Arbitrum can be the place they build them, with Arbitrum capturing a slice of the resulting net protocol revenue. In that framing, ARB’s upside is less about whether Arbitrum wins every L2 metric and more about whether it becomes the default “L2-for-L2s” platform that can charge for distribution, settlement, and execution at scale.

The catch is that the excerpted note does not spell out the methodology behind “net protocol revenue” in the 10% share claim, or how that revenue is measured and netted. Without that, traders are left with a narrative that is directionally coherent but not yet auditable as a cashflow model.

Robinhood Chain as the Early Proof Point—and the Risks That Could Break the Model

Kendrick points to Robinhood Chain as the first major example of the revenue-share dynamic, describing it as having “already materially changed Arbitrum’s economics” after launching in July 2026. At the current run rate, Arbitrum is expected to generate about $5 million in revenue in September, which Kendrick described as more than five times the level before Robinhood Chain launched.

That $5 million figure is the near-term validation point because it is concrete enough to anchor expectations, and because it implies a step-change rather than a gradual drift. It also raises the most important unresolved question in the note: what exactly counts as “revenue” in that run-rate estimate, and how much of it is directly attributable to Robinhood Chain versus other activity on the network.

Kendrick also names the two risks that can break the model: “a slower-than-expected pace of asset tokenization and more competition from alternate blockchains.” Both matter because the thesis assumes tokenization is the growth driver and that Arbitrum can keep attracting builders even as other layer-2s and alternative chains pitch similar economics.

For traders, the forward signals are mostly measurement and replication. Any follow-up disclosure that clarifies what “revenue” includes in the $5 million September run-rate figure, including fee streams, netting, and the measurement source, will matter as much as the headline number, especially if the run rate does not persist beyond September. The second signal is whether additional TradFi-linked or large consumer-fintech layer-2 launches choose Arbitrum, expanding the set of revenue-sharing builders beyond Robinhood Chain.

The macro check is tokenization itself. Updates to RWA.xyz’s cumulative tokenized RWA value will be the cleanest public yardstick against Standard Chartered’s $4 trillion end-2028 forecast trajectory. The competitive check is whether alternate blockchains and layer-2s begin winning the same category of builder deals, which would pressure Arbitrum’s ability to sustain a revenue-share premium.

My Read: This Is a Revenue Narrative Trade Until the $5M Run-Rate Is Verifiable and Repeatable

The call is being read as a straight-line “ARB to $10” forecast, and the procedural detail that matters is that Kendrick’s upside case is really a monetization claim dressed up as a tokenization thesis. The threshold that matters is whether Arbitrum can consistently monetize third-party builders via the stated 10% net protocol revenue share, because that is the only part of the story that can plausibly justify persistent outperformance versus BTC and ETH.

Robinhood Chain is useful here less as a brand name and more as a test case. If the $5 million September run rate can be independently clarified, tracked, and then repeated across multiple builder launches, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, and ARB’s valuation debate shifts from “L2 activity” to “L2 cashflows.”

Sources