larrythedog

This just looks like a student's investment thesis / presentation.

Traders arguably add value by adding liquidity and assisting with price discovery. Arbitrageurs do the latter by definition.

Though, these are fairly complex financial concepts, so it's easy for people to jump to the conclusion that large swaths of the financial industry are worthless. (Of course, some are, but many are not)

You're right on all counts. The point I was trying to make is that it caters to unsophisticated investors, and this platform indirectly encourages them to invest without understanding the risks.

Robinhood definitely takes the cake for ease-of-use, but companies like Interactive Brokers offer very low commissions, and a much more comprehensive tool. May be worth checking out if you're a somewhat sophisticated investor.

As for your response to the short-term trading concerns. Transfer restrictions don't really matter here. I can still buy/sell stocks as much as I want. I don't have to cash out to my bank in order to trade SPY 10 times a day.

The way they market this app makes me pretty concerned. It seems like they're advocating short-term trading -- pretty risky behavior. I guess they don't explicitly do this, but the nature of a mobile-only platform, with what looks like no portfolio/risk analysis tools screams short term. Also, the only real reason a commission-free account would be helpful is if you're trading pretty frequently or in very small amounts. I'd rather pay $10/trade for something like Fidelity, Etrade, or the like, and have access to some mediocre portfolio analysis, risk analysis, and research tools, than have only a Buy/Sell button. However, I'd bet that uninformed investors would see this deal and jump right in without considering these things.

I guess my TLDR here is that a trading platform's selling point (for the general public) should be tools first, price second; not price first, aesthetics second.