# Comparison

This chapter sits after HOLI is named. Two live Robinhood Chain designs show the two halves HOLI is trying to hold at once.

![HOLI compared with OHM / NetNet and SHROOM across treasury philosophy, what the treasury owns, capital productivity, market liquidity, growth, and ecosystem impact](/comparison-ohm-shroom-holi.webp)

HOLI uses Olympus-style **Treasury accounting**, but not OHM-style free rebase or a staking bond. Its non-transferable sHOLI allocates emission through a rising exchange ratio, and that newly minted HOLI is released only after a USDG [Seigniorage Tax](/supply/seigniorage-tax) is paid. Owned vs rented liquidity, including Berachain PoL: [POL vs PoL](/blogs/pol-vs-pol). Third-party token communities: [Why should every community partner with HOLI?](/blogs/partnership).

## SHROOM

**Liquidity Hub without Treasury NAV.**

[SHROOM Network](https://www.shroomnetwork.com/) shows the **feasibility** of a **liquidity intermediate token** as a multi-asset trading hub on Robinhood Chain. Per its **official mechanism and pool data**, SHROOM is a fair-launch, fixed-supply token. It pairs SHROOM **separately** with many Stock Tokens and other assets so those assets share a common route. LP fees first auto-compound into pool depth. After liquidity reaches what the protocol calls **"critical scale,"** excess fees buy SHROOM on the **open market** and burn it.

The advantage of that model is that it **really is** a multi-asset liquidity hub. What SHROOM's official mechanism does **not** disclose is a **markable Treasury reserve**, **NAV per token**, or a **redemption** that binds market price. Token support therefore comes mainly from trading, fee compounding, and future buyback demand — not from a **NAV anchor formed by reserve assets**.

Official data on **9 September 2026** listed **48** protocol-owned LP positions and about **$533,014** total TVL. The largest pool was about **$113,859**; several pools were under **$5,000**. In early network expansion, liquidity **may** be scattered and depth **uneven**.

HOLI keeps the common-routing-token hub. It **adds** a Treasury-reserve-backed **share structure** and **continuous NAV accounting**. The core difference: SHROOM mainly accumulates market depth through **fixed supply, fee compounding, and buyback-and-burn**. HOLI expands **the reserve and POL together** through **Genesis reserves, Treasury asset growth, and new issuance above NAV**.

## NetNet

**Reserve and buyback support — not continuous take-up.**

On [NetNet's docs](https://docs.netnet.capital/), NET is a reserve-backed instrument and the core of its financial product system. The Treasury holds or deploys USDG. Bond sales and staking allocation also form capital. Idle USDG can go to Morpho. When NET trades below NAV, a buyback-and-burn path supports value. Core protocol-owned liquidity is concentrated in NET/USDG. Tokenized RWAs come through Real World Bonds — but those assets sit in a separate **RWA Sleeve** that official docs say is **not** counted in NET's on-chain reserve or NAV.

So NetNet's main support logic is holding reserves, accruing yield, and buying back below NAV — not systematically deploying the reserve as a multi-asset liquidity network with NET in the middle.

The reserve is value support. It is not a hub.

## HOLI

**Not only a Treasury share — a POL-driven cross-asset hub.**

**HOLI does not only own assets. It owns the liquidity connecting those assets.** It is not only a reserve-backed Treasury share token. Hub-and-spoke POL — SHYT, USDG, and tokenized RWA against HOLI, no StockA/StockB — is [Protocol-owned liquidity](/pol). The same Treasury does **value support** and **liquidity infrastructure** at once.

Treasury-held **external-asset/HOLI LP is** HOLI's on-chain exit. Sells are taken along the AMM by POL using **external reserves in the pool**. The reserve is not idle inventory waiting for a buyback trigger. **POL = continuous take-up.** Exit vs accounting print: [NAV ≠ Redemption](/nav/redemption). Fees: [Fee Structure](/treasury-mgmt/amm-fees).

Those POL positions are **productive reserves** in the sense that they provide HOLI exit liquidity and routing. A HOLI sell burns 1% of its HOLI input; this is not LP fee income and developers receive none of it.

That structure can form a network effect a single reserve-token model rarely does. As more eligible assets pair with HOLI, HOLI's trading use and routing demand **may** rise. Deeper protocol-owned liquidity can lower the marginal cost of listing the next asset and attract more names; sell flow may also create more HOLI burns. That is a [flywheel](/flywheel) **design goal**. It does not guarantee volume, yield, or price.

Unlike a reserve token whose thesis depends only on market premium, HOLI also targets routing utility through its owned pool network. The full value thesis is [Protocol-Owned Liquidity](/pol); sHOLI emission still follows the premium gate and USDG [Seigniorage Tax](/supply/seigniorage-tax).

SHROOM is the hub without a Treasury NAV. NetNet is the Treasury NAV without multi-asset POL. HOLI is both.

| | SHROOM | NetNet | HOLI |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Positioning | Multi-asset liquidity intermediate token | Reserve-backed NET and its financial product system | Reserve-backed cross-asset liquidity intermediate token; owns the liquidity connecting its assets |
| Liquidity role | Common trading route for many Stock Tokens and other assets | Core protocol-owned liquidity concentrated in NET/USDG | HOLI as the intermediate token, connecting SHYT, USDG, and tokenized RWAs |
| Supply and capital | Fair launch, fixed supply; fee compounding, then buyback-and-burn after critical scale | USDG reserves, bond sales, staking allocation, and buyback below NAV | sHOLI emission when premium **>45%**; USDG seigniorage tax before release |
| Value support | Mainly trading demand, pool-depth growth, and fee buybacks | Treasury holds or deploys USDG, and buys back NET below NAV | Treasury deploys the reserve as LP; continuous market take-up, NAV accounting, and routing demand jointly support HOLI |
| Productive reserves | LP fees compound into pool depth | Idle USDG can earn lending yield via Morpho | External-asset/HOLI LPs provide exit liquidity and routing; HOLI sales burn 1% |
| Main structural risks | Multi-pool expansion fragments liquidity; no disclosed reserve NAV anchor | NET market premium, USDG/Morpho risk, and management risk of a separate RWA Sleeve | Treasury asset valuation, governance, and multi-market liquidity risk; NAV ≠ guaranteed redemption price |

Stack SHROOM's gap and NetNet's. The answer is clear. A protocol needs a reserve floor from **multiple assets and POL**, and a liquidity hub that **does not only self-reproduce via fees**.

House of Liquidity was designed for both from the start. It is a fund whose **NAV floor** is backed by **stables and tokenized stocks**. It also holds POL that **accumulates depth before any deflationary pressure**. Every Treasury asset sits on **the same NAV line**, not an off-book RWA Sleeve. Official NAV is **1× the external LP leg**. That floor is the marked book. It is not a guaranteed redeem-at-NAV price. [NAV ≠ Redemption](/nav/redemption). [Main risks](/risk).

HOLI targets the gaps these two protocols already live on Robinhood Chain each left.