Talk:Robinhood Markets

"ry" section?
38.105.242.2 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested Edits
I have a WP: COI as an employee of Robinhood. As instructed by the Contact Us page's instructions for article subjects to contact Wikipedia to make requests regarding articles that are "incomplete, inaccurate, or biased," I would like to request that an independent editor review the following proposed edits. User:BC1278 helped me prepare this request, as a paid consultant.

1. In lead, change "It allows individuals to invest in public companies and exchange-traded funds listed on U.S. stock exchanges without paying a commission, purchase cryptocurrency, and plans to offer banking products. " to: "The company offers a mobile app and website that offers people commission-free investing in stocks, ETFs, and options through Robinhood Financial and commission-free crypto trading through Robinhood Crypto. " Note: This clarifies that service is available on both the web and through an app, and that the basic services is not limited to the U.S. stock exchange, but also includes options, cyrptocurriences and ETFs. As it stands, the article is misleading/incomplete. References to plans to offer banking products is speculative. Violates WP: CrystalBall 2. In the lead, change “Robinhood has over 6 million users ” to “Robinhood has over 10 million customer accounts. ”

Note: The prior statement is out of date. 3. Move in lead, "The company's main source of revenue comes from interest earned on customers' cash balances and margin lending. to "History" section, in proper chronological order for 2017, as: "The company's main source of revenue in February 2017 came from interest earned on customers' cash balances and margin lending. It later added a "Robinhood Gold" subscription for a monthly fee. Bloomberg News reported in October 2018 that Robinhood receives almost half of its revenue from payment for order flow. Note: this statement about interest being the primary source of revenue was true in February 2017, but isn't true anymore, which is why it's best in the History section, rather than the lead. I also added the date and made it past tense to further clarify. I added the additional sources of revenue that year since people will wonder how a free service makes money. I also suggest moving the new sentence about order flow, above, from the "Controversy" section to here as it describes another way how the company makes money. 4. Edit, in “Controversies”, the following: "However, in a 2018 statement the company announced it was ending this form of revenue generation by developing its own in-house clearing agency. to: "The company said in October 2018 it had started processing trades through its own clearing system, Clearing by Robinhood. " and Move it to the proper place in History, in chronological order. Note: Company website is not a reliable source. Changed the source to a press account. Revised the statement so it is accurate, as per the reliable source. Neither the press account nor the website says anything about revenue from order flow. 5. Delete in lead: "but in May 2019, reports from Bloomberg and other outlets publicized Robinhood’s pursuit of an additional $200 million in funding, which could value the company in the $7 billion to $10 billion range. Note: Speculative. Violates WP: CrystalBall 6. Delete in lead: "In September 2018, the company's co-founders announced plans to take the company public in 2019. " Note: Violates WP: CrystalBall. 7. In History add: “In July 2019, the company announced it had raised a $323 million Series E financing round at a $7.6 billion valuation. ” ‘’’Note:’’’ Provides the most recent and accurate company valuation. 8. Change in History: "In December 2013 Robinhood launched out of stealth on the crowdsourced technology news website Hacker News, leading to articles about the company in TechCrunch, PandoDaily, VentureBeat, TheStreet and others.  " to: "Robinhood announced an initial $3 million in seed funding in December 2013.” Note: It is bad practice to name sources unless they represent opinion/analysis. That is not the case here. This is just fact-based reporting. It's also incorrect that the app launched "on Hacker New" -- the app has nothing to do with Hacker News. Hacker News published a Reddit leak of the sign-up page link when the app was in beta, according to the TechCrunch source - it is unrelated to the company. Also, one good source is enough. No need to cite four sources here. 9. Edit in History: “Initially the firm had a waiting list, and in under 30 days there were 100,000 signups. By September 2014, the waiting list had reached 500,000 people. In March 2015, the company announced those still on the waitlist could create accounts and any U.S. residents, 18 and older, could apply for an account. " to: "The app officially launched commission-free trading in March 2015, after having amassed a wait list of 800,000 people. " Note: This request includes deleting the first sentence. It is much clearer in the proposed language that this is the date when the product actually launched. And there's no need to mention the previous wait list number in September 2014, pre-launch, if the wait list number at launch in March 2015 is noted.

Thank you.Dpm715 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply 11-DEC-2019
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request. Spintendo 03:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to understand the rational behind approving #6, deleting: "In September 2018, the company's co-founders announced plans to take the company public in 2019.", the reason in the request was it "Violates WP:CrystalBall." However, my understanding is that under WP:CrystalBall: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This seems to directly describe and is applicable to the decision at hand. Concluding that any announced plans are not allowed under WP:CrystalBall is unreasonable. Nithin🚀 talk 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove the verified badge on the article
I just saw this template used on the Robinhood (company) page. It showed a verified badge on the page. This makes no sense in my opinion. Verified badges should not be in existence on the internet, let alone Wikipedia... All it does is make people cringe. Matthew Cenance (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the use of the "verified" badge is not commonplace, I agree it should be removed. I have not seen it used on other articles in Wikipedia. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
Under company description please include the following “contrary to popular belief and folk tale, Robinhood no longer steals from the rich to give to the poor. In January 2021 Robinhood redefined their purpose and set on a mission to steal millions of dollars from the poor, to give to the rich. 173.68.163.84 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ See WP:5P2 and WP:V. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

reviews and google
Anyone think it's notable that google deleted 100k negative? Could we add that in after the section about users adding 1 star reviews.

"Google removed at least 100,000 negative reviews of the stock trading app Robinhood from the Google Play app store after angry users sent a flood of critical reviews that caused the app’s rating to plummet on Thursday. The app’s rating went from roughly four stars out of five on Wednesday to just one star on Thursday. Robinhood users were understandably upset after the company halted purchases of GameStop’s stock and other stocks promoted by Reddit’s WallStreetBets community.

A Google spokesperson confirmed the tech giant has deleted the reviews and defended the move overnight, telling Gizmodo over email that it has rules against “coordinated or inorganic reviews.” Gizmodo asked how negative reviews could be deemed “inorganic” when people seem reasonably upset about Robinhood’s actions in recent days. Google stopped responding to Gizmodo’s emails after that inquiry." --160.2.143.157 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ How does this edit look? Also added a sentence to GameStop short squeeze and took a sentence from it about physical protests. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks fine though probably it would be worth adding how the protests came about, which according to the sourcing, was the result of the "call to arms" post made on Reddit. While the Reddit user made the post as a prank and was subsequently banned from r/wallstreetbets for it, I'd think this particular information would be too tangential and I can't find a reliable source for it anyways. I only know it from the subreddit moderators and the prankster's admission. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Would it be fitting to add in that the barrage of negative reviews on the app happened a second time, but this time around were reportedly compliant with Google's review policy and were not removed? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'd say go for it, but keep things as concise as you can. Remember to stick to just the things the sources say. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is notable and certainly an important part of the GameStop chapter.Kerdooskis (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2021
This is more accurate as to source and valuations, so I ask it is changed As of May 2018, Robinhood raised a total of $550 million in venture capital funding, in part from JAF Jordan Alexander Family Office , with the last valuation at $5.9 billion , up from their previous valuation of 1.3 billion. 2605:B100:311:FC4:A145:EB3D:8152:DC8F (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done: Firstly, it is unclear where to insert this text into. Secondly, please provide wp:reliable sources.  ~  Aseleste charge-paritytime 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2021
Change the number of Robinhood users from 13 million to 31 million, per a Wall Street Journal reporting on newly released public figures.

"Robinhood now has 31 million customers, 18 million of whom have funded accounts, according to a settlement document made public Wednesday."

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/robinhood-agrees-to-pay-70-million-to-settle-regulatory-investigation-11625063765?mod=hp_lead_pos1 2601:243:CD00:8D70:543B:A0DC:5358:F36B (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Living Concrete (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Inflation Adjustments
"Robinhood faced controversy in June 2020 after University of Nebraska student Alexander E. Kearns committed suicide after seeing a negative cash balance of US$730,000 (equivalent to $764,355 in 2021) in his Robinhood margin trading account."

The inflation adjustment just seems like a distraction.128.187.112.28 (talk) 128.187.112.28 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022
Add a hatnote link to Robin Hood, the fictional character 137.27.95.250 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It seems unlikely that anyone would mistake the two articles, or find this accidentally searching for the other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2023
Change the following in Robinhood Markets:

to

Original article has poor wording and is missing wikilinks. Dawnbails (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023
Change to  207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though with a different source as Investopedia is not considered a reliable source. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)