Choosing a launchpad on Robinhood Chain

Robinhood Chain has had three token launchpads of note. One shut down. This page is the comparison we would want if we were choosing today.

The venues

hood.fun, the active incumbent. Two factory contracts, 10,870 tokens at the time of writing, both indexed here (the audit is one tokenCount() call against their own contracts).

Noxa.fun, was the largest launchpad on the chain, with roughly 60,000 tokens launched and about $12M collected in fees. On July 11, 2026 it halted new launches, citing bot-driven copycat spam; within days the site went dark entirely. Its tokens still exist on-chain a contract does not shut down when a website does, but the venue that listed them is gone.

Hashling, this site. Launch factory live on Robinhood Chain mainnet at 0x3b38c6Fa9Cc41d3A20d64111325231E7dEF7D523, source-verified on Blockscout.

Fees, side by side

Parameter	Hashling	hood.fun
Launch cost	gas only	gas only
Trade fee	1% flat	1% flat
Creator share of curve fees	80%	80%
Curve / Uniswap allocation	80% / 20%	80% / 20%
Migration cost at graduation	0.25 ETH + 3% of raise	0.5 ETH + 3% + 0.05 ETH

(Same table as the whitepaper; both columns are published constants and either can be recomputed from the contracts.)

What the Noxa shutdown actually teaches

Sixty thousand projects lost their venue overnight, pages, charts, history. Not because anything happened on-chain, but because the site in front of the chain turned off.

Hashling is built on the opposite premise: the chain is the venue. Every token here is indexed from contracts and deployment logs, not from any platform’s API, including hood.fun’s tokens, including the orphaned Noxa-era tokens our scanner holds as unclassified rather than dropped. If Hashling’s website vanished tomorrow, every Hashling token, its curve, and its history would remain fully recoverable from public chain data, and the factory would keep working, it has no owner and no admin to disappear.

The copycat spam that overwhelmed Noxa is also a data problem before it is a moderation problem: Hashling’s confidence tiers separate factory-verified deployments from address-pattern lookalikes, so a copycat is visible as one.

A creator keeps control of their story

On most launchpads a project’s page is whatever the platform renders, and when copycats appear the real team has no way to say so where buyers are looking. Here:

Claim your project with a wallet signature, the deploying wallet proves itself by signing a message. No transaction, no fee, no admin approval, nothing surrendered.
Publish dated statements on your own page, updates, corrections, “this other token is not us.” Earlier statements stay readable; nothing is overwritten, so the record is trustworthy because it cannot be quietly edited.
Comments are holder-verified, to post on a project you must hold it, checked against the token contract itself. Spam has a cost that scales with how many projects it targets.
Copycats are visible as copycats, a token wearing a lookalike address pattern that the factory did not deploy shows no verified badge, because deployment is a fact read from the chain and a name is not.

Status, stated plainly

Hashling’s contracts are unaudited (fuzz-tested; suite published) and graduation to Uniswap v3 is not yet enabled on-chain, graduate() reverts until the migrator ships. The curve is fully exit-able at all times. hood.fun is the mature venue with graduation live today; that is a real difference and this page does not pretend otherwise.

Hashling is independent and unaffiliated with Robinhood, hood.fun, or Noxa. Figures dated 2026-08-14; verify anything that matters against the chain.