Staking: The Foundation of Modern Blockchain Infrastructure

Staking has become a foundational mechanism in the design of modern blockchain networks. Rather than serving as an auxiliary feature or optional enhancement, staking is embedded directly into protocol architecture and plays a central role in how decentralised systems achieve security, coordination, and operational continuity.

For institutional participants, staking is best understood as protocol participation rather than a purely financial activity. It represents engagement with blockchain infrastructure at its most fundamental level, where economic alignment (Proof of Stake) replaces physical resource expenditure (Proof of Work) as the basis for network security. In many proof-of-stake networks, this participation results in yield generated directly by the protocol as a consequence of validation activity.

This distinction is essential in regulated environments, where clarity of function, asset ownership, and operational responsibility must be preserved at all times.

This article provides a structural and non-promotional examination of staking. It is intended to support informed understanding rather than participation decisions. The focus is placed on protocol mechanics, economic logic, yield formation, governance considerations, regulatory alignment, and institutional risk management considerations.

Public blockchains require a method through which independent participants can agree on the state of a shared ledger without reliance on a central authority. Early networks relied on proof of work, where participants compete to validate transactions by expending computational energy. This approach has proven resilient but introduces structural trade-offs related to energy consumption, hardware concentration, and scalability.

Proof of stake represents an alternative approach in which consensus is achieved through economic commitment rather than physical expenditure. Participants known as validators commit native assets to the network as stake, which functions as economic collateral under protocol-defined rules. The protocol assigns validation responsibilities deterministically and enforces outcomes automatically.

In proof-of-stake systems such as Ethereum, validators are required to lock a defined amount of native assets in order to participate directly in block production and attestation. Other networks, such as Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Polygon, Tezos, and TON, allow broader participation through delegation mechanisms, where asset holders support validators without operating infrastructure themselves. Across these networks, yield is generated by the protocol and distributed according to predefined rules. This yield typically originates from a combination of network issuance and transaction fees and is inseparable from the act of securing and maintaining the ledger.

Figure 1: Proof of Stake as a Protocol-Level Consensus Mechanism

At its core, staking functions as an economic coordination mechanism. It ensures that validators who participate in consensus are economically aligned with the correct operation of the network. This alignment reduces reliance on trust and replaces it with deterministic protocol logic.

Staking does not require a transfer of ownership. Assets committed to staking remain governed by protocol rules rather than contractual obligations or discretionary arrangements. This characteristic distinguishes staking from lending, rehypothecation, or balance sheet transformation activities.

From an institutional perspective, yield generated through staking should be understood as protocol-native. For example, networks such as Ethereum and Tezos distribute yield to validators and delegators who meet protocol requirements, while imposing penalties on those who fail to do so. Yield is therefore compensation for performing validation duties and assuming protocol-defined responsibilities, not a market-driven return.

Separation of Asset Ownership and Validator Operations

Modern staking architectures explicitly separate asset ownership from validator operations. Asset holders retain ownership of their digital assets while delegating validation responsibilities to specialised infrastructure that performs protocol-defined duties.

In networks such as Cardano and Polkadot, delegation allows asset holders to support network security without transferring custody or control. The protocol records delegation relationships on chain, and yield accrues according to transparent rules while ownership remains unchanged.

This separation is particularly relevant in institutional contexts, where custody arrangements, operational risk management, and regulatory compliance must be addressed independently. It enables institutions to participate in staking while maintaining robust governance and asset segregation.

Figure 2: Separation of Asset Ownership and Validator Operations

Staking operates under protocol-enforced rules that define acceptable behaviour and associated outcomes. These rules are transparent, deterministic, and applied automatically by the network.

Validators are expected to meet protocol requirements such as availability, correctness, and participation in consensus. Failure to adhere to these requirements results in predefined consequences enforced at the protocol level, which may include partial loss of stake or reduced participation rights. Sustained correct participation may result in the continued accrual of protocol-defined yield.

Yield in this context is variable and conditional. For illustrative purposes, annualised protocol yield across major proof-of-stake networks has historically ranged from low single digits to low double digits, depending on network parameters, staking participation rates, and transaction activity. These figures are not fixed, not guaranteed, and may change as protocol conditions evolve.

Figure 3: Protocol-Enforced Validator Behaviour

Institutional participation in staking introduces operational considerations beyond protocol mechanics. These include infrastructure reliability, key management, monitoring processes, governance oversight, and incident response procedures.

Professional validator operations require secure environments, redundancy, and continuous monitoring. Validator availability and correctness directly influence protocol outcomes, including eligibility for yield. As a result, operational discipline is a prerequisite for consistent protocol participation.

Equally important is the separation between custody and staking operations. Institutional frameworks typically ensure that private keys remain under controlled custody arrangements, while staking activity occurs within defined technical parameters. This structure supports regulatory expectations and internal risk management standards.

The regulatory treatment of staking varies across jurisdictions and continues to evolve as supervisory authorities refine their approach to digital asset activities. Institutional staking frameworks must therefore be designed with cross-jurisdictional compliance in mind.

Participation in staking exposes institutions to a distinct set of risks that arise not from market dynamics but from protocol design, operational execution, and governance dependencies. These risks are embedded in the mechanics of decentralised systems and must be addressed through dedicated control frameworks rather than conventional financial risk models.

The primary source of protocol risk arises from validator behaviour and network enforcement. Proof of stake systems impose automatic penalties for incorrect or unavailable participation. Slashing events (a method of punishing validators with bad intentions), reduced rewards, or temporary exclusion from consensus are enforced directly by protocol logic and cannot be reversed through contractual remedies. Institutions must therefore treat protocol rule adherence as a core risk parameter and ensure that validation activity consistently meets network-defined performance thresholds.

Operational risk represents a second critical dimension. Validator infrastructure is exposed to software failures, configuration errors, connectivity disruptions, and key management vulnerabilities. Even brief periods of downtime may result in reduced rewards or financial penalties under protocol rules. Robust redundancy, continuous monitoring, incident response procedures, and formal change management processes, meaning controlled and documented procedures for approving, testing, and deploying system updates or configuration changes, are essential to limit the probability and impact of operational failures.

Custodial and control risks are equally central. Although staking does not require transfer of ownership, it introduces technical workflows that interact directly with private key infrastructure. Institutions must preserve strict segregation between custody functions and staking operations, ensuring that staking activity cannot compromise asset control, withdrawal rights, or client asset protections. Any delegation or validator integration must operate within clearly defined custody mandates and approval hierarchies.

Liquidity risk is inherent to staking participation. Most protocols impose unbonding or withdrawal periods, meaning a mandatory waiting phase between requesting a withdrawal and the assets becoming transferable again, during which assets remain locked and unavailable for transfer or settlement. These constraints may vary across networks and can change through protocol governance decisions. Institutions must therefore assess staking exposure in the context of broader liquidity management, settlement obligations, and client redemption expectations.

Protocol governance and software evolution introduce an additional layer of structural risk. Network upgrades, parameter changes, or governance outcomes may alter reward mechanics, penalty conditions, or operational requirements with limited advance notice. Institutions participating in staking remain subject to these evolving rule sets and must maintain active monitoring of protocol developments, governance proposals, and client communications.

Finally, yield variability itself constitutes a form of risk. Staking returns are not contractual, not fixed, and not guaranteed. They fluctuate with network participation rates, transaction activity, issuance schedules, and protocol parameters. Institutions must therefore ensure that yield is communicated as conditional protocol compensation rather than as predictable income and that internal valuation and performance frameworks reflect this variability.

Taken together, these considerations require staking to be governed within a dedicated risk framework encompassing protocol exposure, operational resilience, custody integrity, liquidity management, and governance oversight. Only through structured controls can institutions participate in staking while preserving fiduciary discipline and regulatory alignment.

European Union and the European Economic Area: The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) establishes a harmonised framework for crypto-asset service providers. While staking is not prohibited, MiCAR places emphasis on authorisation, governance standards, operational resilience, and transparent disclosure, particularly where yield is referenced in client communications.

United States: Regulatory scrutiny has increased, with federal agencies indicating that certain staking arrangements may fall within existing securities or commodities frameworks depending on their structure. Particular attention has been directed towards pooled staking models and how yield is described or contextualised.

Hong Kong: Guidance issued by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) for authorised institutions and licensed virtual asset trading platforms intending to provide staking services, with regulatory expectations including prior approval where applicable, robust custody arrangements, segregation of client assets, and clear disclosure of staking mechanics and yield-related considerations.

Singapore: The regulatory framework, overseen by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), regulates digital payment token (DPT) services and custody activities. Staking is permitted within this framework subject to licensing, safeguarding, and disclosure obligations, including transparency around yield mechanisms.

Across these jurisdictions, common supervisory themes include asset segregation, transparency of risks, governance oversight, and avoidance of balance sheet transformation.

Staking represents engagement with the governance layer of blockchain networks. In some protocols, such as Polkadot and Tezos, staked assets confer voting rights or influence over protocol upgrades. Institutions must therefore define policies around governance participation, delegation, and oversight.

Yield considerations do not alter this responsibility. Staking remains an active form of protocol engagement requiring informed governance, internal controls, and alignment with fiduciary responsibilities.

Staking is a foundational component of modern blockchain design. It replaces energy-based security models with economically aligned participation, enabling decentralised networks to operate securely and at scale.

For institutional participants, staking should be approached as protocol-level engagement rather than as a yield-focused strategy. While yield is an explicit and measurable outcome of correct participation in proof-of-stake networks, it remains secondary to the primary objective of securing and governing decentralised systems.

A clear understanding of staking’s technical, economic, yield-related, and governance dimensions forms the basis for responsible participation in the evolving digital asset ecosystem.

Disclaimer – Research and Educational Content

This document has been prepared by AMINA Bank Ltd. (“AMINA”). AMINA is a Swiss licensed bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorized and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”).

This document is published solely for educational purposes; it is not an advertisement nor a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for publication only on AMINA website, blog, and AMINA social media accounts as permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject AMINA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.

Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of AMINA. This document is based on various sources, incl. AMINA ones.  In preparing this document, AMINA may have made limited use of artificial intelligence–enabled tools to assist with research, summarisation, and drafting, with all content subject to human review and validation.

No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning AMINA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the subjects alluded to in the document, whereas general information, financial investments, markets or developments. AMINA does not undertake to update or keep current information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent AMINA’s interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party.

Any formulas, equations, or prices stated in this document are for informational or explanatory purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been affected at those formulas, equations, or prices, and any formula(s), equation(s), or price(s) do not necessarily reflect AMINA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by AMINA or any other source may yield substantially different results.

Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications.

At any time, investment decisions (including, among others, deposit, buy, sell or hold investments) made by AMINA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in AMINA research publications.

This document may not be reproduced, or copies circulated without prior authority of AMINA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, AMINA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. AMINA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document.

©2026 AMINA, Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug