Cryptocurrency Staking: How Proof-of-Stake Networks Let You Earn Passive Income (2025)

Introduction

Cryptocurrency staking has emerged as one of the most compelling ways for digital asset holders to generate passive income while contributing to blockchain network security. Unlike traditional Proof-of-Work mining that requires expensive hardware and massive energy consumption, staking allows anyone with compatible cryptocurrencies to earn rewards simply by locking up their assets to support network operations.

The concept mirrors earning interest on a savings account, but the mechanisms and implications differ substantially. When you stake cryptocurrency, you're not lending to a bank that invests your deposits. Instead, you're directly participating in the consensus mechanism that validates transactions and secures a blockchain network. In return for this service and the risk of locking up capital, networks reward stakers with newly minted tokens and transaction fees.

As Ethereum's historic transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake in 2022 demonstrated, staking has moved from a niche activity to a fundamental pillar of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Today, staking represents a multi-billion dollar market with yields ranging from modest 3-4% annual returns on major assets like Ethereum to double-digit percentages on smaller networks. Understanding how staking works, the risks involved, and the regulatory landscape becomes essential for any cryptocurrency investor considering this income strategy.

This article explores the technical foundations of staking, compares centralized and decentralized staking approaches, examines returns relative to traditional investments, and analyzes the evolving regulatory perspectives across Europe, the United States, and globally.

How Proof-of-Stake Consensus Mechanisms Work

The Foundation: Validators and Delegators

Proof-of-Stake blockchains fundamentally reimagine how distributed networks achieve consensus. Rather than miners competing to solve computational puzzles, PoS networks select validators based on the amount of cryptocurrency they've staked as collateral. The more tokens a validator locks up, the higher their probability of being chosen to propose and validate new blocks.

This design creates a powerful economic incentive structure. Validators must commit substantial capital, exposing themselves to financial risk if they attempt to validate fraudulent transactions. Networks enforce honesty through slashing mechanisms that confiscate portions of staked tokens when validators violate protocol rules, whether through malicious intent or technical failures. This skin-in-the-game approach secures networks without the environmental costs of energy-intensive mining.

For users without the technical expertise or capital to run validators, most PoS networks offer delegation options. Delegators can stake smaller amounts by pooling resources with established validators, earning proportional rewards without maintaining infrastructure. Ethereum, for instance, requires 32 ETH (over $100,000 at current prices) to run a solo validator, making delegation the practical choice for most participants.

The Rewards Structure

Staking rewards come from two primary sources. First, networks mint new tokens through inflation, distributing them to validators and delegators as compensation for securing the blockchain. Second, validators collect transaction fees from network activity. The combination typically generates annual percentage yields between 3% and 15%, depending on the specific blockchain's economic model.

These rewards accrue continuously, with distribution frequencies varying by network. Some protocols compound rewards automatically, while others require manual claiming. The inflation component means that stakers receive more tokens over time, though whether this translates to increased value depends on the token's market price trajectory and overall supply dynamics.

Networks calibrate reward rates to maintain optimal staking participation. Too low and insufficient validators join to secure the network. Too high and excessive inflation dilutes token value. Most mature networks target 50-70% of total token supply staked, adjusting reward curves to hit these targets.

Lock-Up Periods and Liquidity Constraints

Unlike bank accounts where depositors can withdraw funds on demand, staking typically involves lock-up periods. When you commit tokens to staking, they enter a bonded state where they cannot be freely transferred or sold. Unstaking triggers an unbonding period, often lasting days or weeks, during which tokens remain locked but stop earning rewards.

These constraints serve important security functions. They prevent validators from quickly exiting after malicious behavior and ensure network stability by discouraging short-term speculation. For stakers, however, this illiquidity represents a significant consideration. Market conditions can shift dramatically during unbonding periods, and emergency liquidity needs cannot be immediately met with staked assets.

The emergence of liquid staking solutions addresses this limitation by issuing derivative tokens representing staked positions. Holders of these derivatives maintain exposure to staking rewards while preserving the ability to trade, creating a more flexible staking experience.

Centralized Versus Decentralized Staking Platforms

Centralized Exchange Staking Services

Cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken offer staking as a service, managing the technical complexity on behalf of users. Depositing tokens into an exchange's staking program requires minimal effort, often just a few clicks in a mobile app. The exchange handles validator operations, automates reward distribution, and typically offers flexible terms including instant unstaking options.

This convenience comes at the cost of custody. When staking through an exchange, users transfer control of private keys to the platform. The exchange becomes the custodian, introducing counterparty risk. If the platform experiences hacks, insolvency, or regulatory actions, staked assets may become inaccessible. The 2022 collapses of Celsius and BlockFi, while primarily lending platforms, demonstrated how quickly user funds can vanish when centralized crypto services fail.

Exchanges also extract fees from staking rewards, typically retaining 10-25% of earnings. While they provide value through simplified user experience and operational expertise, these fees meaningfully reduce net yields compared to direct staking. Regulatory considerations add another layer of complexity. Following SEC enforcement actions against Kraken and others, U.S. exchanges have restricted or eliminated staking services, leaving American users with fewer centralized options.

Decentralized Staking Protocols

Decentralized staking eliminates intermediaries by enabling direct interaction with blockchain protocols. Users maintain custody of private keys while participating in staking through non-custodial wallets and smart contracts. This approach maximizes security from custodial risks, as no third party can freeze, seize, or misuse staked assets.

Liquid staking protocols like Lido represent the most significant innovation in decentralized staking. Lido allows users to stake Ethereum and receive stETH tokens in return. These liquid staking derivatives track the value of staked ETH plus accrued rewards, but remain freely tradable. This elegant solution preserves both staking yield and capital mobility, explaining why Lido has captured approximately 30% of all staked Ethereum.

The decentralized approach requires greater user responsibility. Interacting with smart contracts demands understanding of wallet management, transaction signing, and gas fee mechanics. Smart contract vulnerabilities, while rare in audited protocols, present risks absent from centralized platforms. Users must also independently verify validator performance when choosing delegation targets, as poor validator selection can result in suboptimal returns or slashing penalties.

Comparing the Approaches

The optimal choice depends on user priorities. Those valuing convenience and familiar interfaces often prefer centralized services despite higher fees and custody risks. Users prioritizing self-sovereignty and maximizing yields typically choose decentralized protocols despite increased complexity.

Staking Returns Compared to Traditional Investments

Yield Levels Across Major Cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrency staking currently offers yields substantially exceeding most traditional fixed-income investments. Ethereum staking generates approximately 3.5-4% annual returns, while Cardano offers 4-5%, Solana 5-7%, and Polkadot has historically provided 12-14%. Even conservative estimates place average staking yields around 6%, compared to savings accounts offering under 1% and investment-grade bonds yielding 3-5%.

These nominal return differences appear attractive, particularly in low-interest-rate environments. A portfolio allocated to diversified staking positions could theoretically generate 6-8% annual yields without active trading or market timing. This passive income potential attracts both retail investors seeking alternatives to negligible bank interest and institutions exploring cryptocurrency allocations.

However, comparing staking yields to traditional returns requires examining risk-adjusted performance. The higher nominal yields compensate for substantially greater principal volatility and unique risk factors absent from conventional investments.

Principal Risk and Volatility Considerations

The fundamental difference between staking returns and traditional interest lies in principal volatility. Bank deposits and government bonds exhibit minimal price fluctuation, with principal essentially guaranteed in nominal terms. Corporate bonds and dividend stocks experience moderate volatility, with price swings typically contained within 20-30% annually in normal market conditions.

Cryptocurrency prices, by contrast, routinely swing 40-60% in either direction during single calendar years. Major cryptocurrencies have experienced 80%+ drawdowns from peak prices, with recoveries taking years. A 5% staking yield provides little consolation if the underlying token declines 50% in value. The net result remains substantial fiat-denominated losses despite accumulating more tokens.

This volatility fundamentally alters the risk-return calculus. Traditional investments with 5% yields typically exhibit volatility below 10%, producing favorable Sharpe ratios. Cryptocurrency staking combines 5-10% yields with 60%+ volatility, generating risk-adjusted returns that often underperform diversified traditional portfolios.

For committed long-term cryptocurrency holders, staking represents a rational optimization. If you intend to maintain Bitcoin or Ethereum exposure regardless of short-term price movements, earning additional yield improves outcomes versus passive holding. For investors comparing asset allocation options, however, staking's risk-adjusted returns may not justify the heightened volatility.

Source of Returns and Economic Sustainability

Staking rewards originate from protocol-level token issuance and transaction fees, not productive economic activity. Networks mint new tokens to incentivize validator participation, creating ongoing inflation. Annual staking yields of 10% often correspond to 10% token supply inflation, meaning stakers maintain purchasing power while non-stakers see holdings diluted.

This differs fundamentally from traditional investments where returns reflect underlying economic production. Stock dividends come from corporate profits. Bond interest compensates lenders for time value and credit risk. Bank interest arises from spread between lending and borrowing rates. These returns link to real economic activity.

Cryptocurrency networks can sustainably provide staking rewards only if token demand grows alongside supply inflation. Rising network adoption, increasing transaction volumes, and expanding use cases must absorb inflationary pressure. Many networks targeting long-term sustainability schedule decreasing inflation rates, gradually reducing staking yields as networks mature.

The economic sustainability question looms particularly large for networks offering extraordinarily high yields. Double-digit staking returns often signal either immature networks aggressively subsidizing early adoption or unsustainable token economics that will eventually compress yields.

Additional Unique Risks

Staking introduces risk categories absent from traditional investments. Slashing mechanisms can confiscate 1-5% of staked tokens if validators violate protocol rules, whether through malicious behavior or technical failures. While delegators typically avoid full slashing penalties, they share in reduced rewards when selected validators underperform.

Smart contract risk affects decentralized staking protocols. Bugs or vulnerabilities in staking contracts have resulted in total loss of deposited funds in some instances. While established protocols undergo extensive auditing and maintain strong security records, the risk cannot be eliminated entirely.

Regulatory uncertainty creates potential for sudden value destruction. Government actions classifying staking rewards as securities or banning staking services could dramatically impact token prices and staking accessibility. The evolving regulatory landscape means stakers must monitor legal developments that could fundamentally alter the activity's viability.

European Regulatory Framework: MiCA and Staking Services

MiCA's Comprehensive Approach

The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation represents the most developed regulatory framework addressing cryptocurrency staking. MiCA, which began phased implementation in 2024 with full effect in 2025, creates comprehensive rules for crypto-asset service providers operating within EU member states.

Critically, MiCA does not prohibit or restrict individual staking activity. Users engaging in direct, non-custodial staking through blockchain protocols face no new licensing requirements or restrictions. The regulation explicitly recognizes that staking in its narrow technical meaning constitutes a protocol-level process where participants lock assets to earn validation privileges and block rewards.

MiCA's regulatory scope focuses instead on intermediaries offering staking services. Exchanges, custodians, and platforms that stake on behalf of customers must obtain authorization as Crypto-Asset Service Providers. This licensing regime subjects businesses to capital requirements, governance standards, and operational guidelines designed to protect consumers.

Custody and Liability Requirements

The European regulatory framework treats staking services as custodial arrangements, given that providers hold customers' private keys and control asset access during staking periods. This classification triggers significant obligations. Authorized service providers must maintain strict segregation between customer assets and company funds, implement robust security controls, and maintain sufficient capital reserves to cover potential losses.

Liability provisions represent particularly important consumer protections. Under MiCA, businesses offering staking services remain liable for losses resulting from their operations, including slashing penalties, technical failures, or security breaches. If a provider's validator misbehaves and suffers slashing penalties, the business must absorb these losses rather than passing them to customers. This shifts operational risk from retail users to professional service providers better equipped to manage it.

Service providers must also enable customer withdrawals on reasonable timelines. While unbonding periods inherent to blockchain protocols remain, exchanges cannot impose additional arbitrary lock-ups or withdrawal restrictions. These consumer protection measures aim to prevent scenarios where providers lock customer funds indefinitely or fail to return staked assets on demand.

Transparency and Disclosure Standards

MiCA establishes extensive disclosure requirements for staking service providers. Platforms must clearly communicate expected returns, associated risks, fee structures, and the specific mechanisms through which they generate yields. Marketing materials cannot promise guaranteed returns or minimize risks inherent in cryptocurrency volatility and staking mechanics.

This transparency emphasis addresses concerns that early staking products obscured risks while promoting high yields. Some platforms advertised double-digit returns without adequately explaining that rewards came from inflationary token issuance rather than sustainable business operations. Others failed to disclose fee structures that significantly reduced net returns relative to direct staking.

Under MiCA, providers must publish regular reports detailing validator performance, fee deductions, and reward distributions. Customers gain visibility into exactly how their staked assets are deployed and what returns they're actually receiving after all fees and penalties.

Implications for the European Staking Market

MiCA's balanced approach positions Europe as a favorable jurisdiction for staking innovation. By permitting the activity while regulating service providers, the framework enables legitimate businesses to operate with legal clarity. Exchanges can offer staking products to European customers under supervision rather than in regulatory gray zones or through offshore entities.

This regulatory certainty contrasts sharply with more restrictive approaches in other jurisdictions. European crypto companies can build staking services confident that compliance with MiCA establishes legal standing. Users benefit from enhanced protections while maintaining access to staking opportunities, both through regulated platforms and direct protocol participation.

The framework's emphasis on custodial oversight rather than restricting the underlying activity reflects sophisticated understanding of blockchain technology. Regulators recognized that staking itself represents network-level functionality that cannot and should not be prohibited. The focus instead falls on ensuring that commercial intermediaries meet appropriate standards when offering staking to retail customers.

United States: Securities Classification and Enforcement Actions

The SEC's Investment Contract Analysis

American cryptocurrency staking faces substantially more restrictive regulatory treatment. The Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position that many centralized staking programs constitute unregistered securities offerings under the Howey test, the longstanding framework for identifying investment contracts.

The SEC's analysis hinges on several factors. When exchanges pool customer tokens and promise returns generated through the platform's efforts (running validators, optimizing yield strategies), this arrangement resembles investment contracts where investors commit funds to a common enterprise with profit expectations derived from others' efforts. The commission argues that staking programs meeting these criteria must register as securities offerings or qualify for exemptions.

This interpretation creates substantial friction with the cryptocurrency industry. Proponents argue that staking simply facilitates access to protocol-level functionality, similar to how wallet software enables transaction signing. They contend that users retain ownership of staked tokens and that rewards flow from blockchain networks, not from the platform's independent business operations.

Kraken and Coinbase Enforcement Actions

The SEC's February 2023 settlement with Kraken crystallized the agency's aggressive stance. Kraken had offered U.S. customers staking services with advertised yields up to 21%, pooling deposits and managing validator operations internally. The SEC charged that this constituted an unregistered securities offering, ultimately forcing Kraken to pay $30 million in penalties and immediately cease staking services for American customers.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler characterized Kraken's program as selling investment products without proper disclosures and safeguards. The settlement established precedent that centralized platforms offering staking to U.S. persons likely face similar enforcement risk absent SEC registration.

Following Kraken, the SEC's June 2023 lawsuit against Coinbase included charges that Coinbase's staking program violated securities laws. Coinbase disputes these allegations and continues contesting the case. The exchange argues its staking service merely facilitates user access to Ethereum and other protocols rather than constituting an independent investment offering. This ongoing litigation will significantly influence how American exchanges approach staking services.

Impact on U.S. Cryptocurrency Users

SEC enforcement has dramatically reduced centralized staking options for American cryptocurrency holders. Major exchanges have eliminated or severely restricted staking products available to U.S. customers. This regulatory pressure has not eliminated staking activity but has pushed it toward decentralized protocols and non-U.S. platforms.

American users increasingly turn to non-custodial staking through wallets like MetaMask or Ledger, directly interacting with blockchain protocols without intermediaries. Liquid staking protocols like Lido remain accessible, as purely decentralized smart contracts operating without centralized operators fall outside the SEC's immediate enforcement focus.

This fragmentation creates suboptimal outcomes. Sophisticated users navigate decentralized alternatives while less technical investors lose access to staking entirely. The lack of clear statutory guidance from Congress means regulatory clarity depends on enforcement actions and eventual court rulings rather than predictable legislative standards.

Global Regulatory Perspectives

Asia's Varied Approaches

Asian cryptocurrency regulations reflect diverse national strategies. Japan has provided relatively clear guidance, treating staking rewards as taxable income subject to progressive rates up to 55%. While this creates significant tax burden, the regulatory clarity enables Japanese exchanges to offer staking services under existing financial licenses.

South Korea's 2023 Virtual Asset User Protection Act establishes comprehensive consumer protections for cryptocurrency services including staking. The law mandates enhanced record-keeping, transparency requirements, and security standards for platforms offering staking. Korean exchanges must disclose fee structures, validator performance, and potential risks, creating frameworks similar to European approaches.

Singapore maintains its reputation as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction with light-touch staking regulation. Staking services do not automatically trigger securities classification unless they exhibit characteristics of collective investment schemes. The zero capital gains tax environment and supportive regulatory stance have attracted numerous staking service providers to establish operations in Singapore.

Dubai continues positioning itself as a global cryptocurrency hub with favorable staking policies. The Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority permits staking services under general digital asset licensing frameworks without imposing punitive restrictions. Combined with zero taxation on crypto income, Dubai offers attractive conditions for both service providers and users.

United Kingdom's Developing Framework

The UK Financial Conduct Authority is crafting comprehensive cryptocurrency regulations expected to address staking explicitly. The FCA has indicated plans to implement rules for trading platforms and staking services emphasizing prudential measures and consumer protections. This suggests a regime resembling MiCA rather than the SEC's restrictive approach.

Currently, UK users access staking through a mix of exchanges and DeFi protocols, though regulatory uncertainty has caused some platforms to limit services. The forthcoming regulatory clarity should enable compliant businesses to offer staking products with confidence while providing users with enhanced protections.

Taxation Across Jurisdictions

Most tax authorities treat staking rewards as income taxable at the time of receipt, though some debate exists about whether taxation should occur at reception or only upon sale. The United States, United Kingdom, and Japan tax staking rewards as ordinary income using fair market value at receipt. This creates complexity for stakers receiving continuous small rewards requiring detailed record-keeping for accurate tax reporting.

Some jurisdictions with more crypto-friendly policies, including Portugal (in some interpretations), Germany (for holdings exceeding one year), and several Eastern European nations, offer reduced or eliminated taxes on cryptocurrency gains including staking rewards. These favorable tax treatments make such countries attractive for cryptocurrency investors seeking to maximize after-tax returns.

Critical Analysis

The Illusion of Passive Income

Cryptocurrency staking markets itself as passive income generation, but this characterization obscures important realities. While staking requires less active involvement than trading, it exposes holders to multifaceted risks demanding ongoing attention. Token price volatility means staking returns measured in fiat terms fluctuate dramatically. A portfolio generating 6% staking yields might experience 40% principal losses during market downturns, hardly the stability implied by "passive income" framing.

The comparison to traditional income sources misleads by ignoring risk-adjusted returns. Bank interest carries minimal risk. Dividend stocks experience moderate volatility backed by corporate earnings. Staking rewards derive from token inflation and transaction fees, with sustainability dependent on continued network adoption. Many high-yield staking opportunities target networks with uncertain long-term viability.

More fundamentally, does accumulating more tokens while the network experiences declining adoption or usage truly constitute "income" in any meaningful sense? Stakers may increase token counts while their economic position deteriorates if network fundamentals weaken. This dynamic resembles receiving shares in a failing company rather than genuine income generation.

Centralization Through Decentralization

Liquid staking protocols solve legitimate liquidity problems but introduce concerning centralization vectors. Lido controlling 30% of staked Ethereum concentrates substantial power in one protocol. If Lido's governance or operator set becomes compromised, corrupted, or captured by special interests, Ethereum's consensus process faces material risks.

The promise of decentralized networks loses meaning if a handful of staking providers dominate validation. Network censorship resistance depends on distributed validation across many independent operators. When users concentrate stakes through convenient liquid staking protocols, they inadvertently recreate centralization that Proof-of-Stake networks aim to avoid.

This tension between user convenience and network security lacks easy solutions. Individual direct staking remains technically challenging and capital-intensive. Liquid staking delivers clear user benefits. Yet mass adoption of liquid staking threatens the very decentralization properties that make these networks valuable. The cryptocurrency community must grapple with this fundamental tradeoff.

Regulatory Arbitrage and Long-Term Sustainability

The current global regulatory fragmentation enables regulatory arbitrage but undermines long-term sustainability. Cryptocurrency businesses structure operations to exploit favorable jurisdictions, locating staking services in permissive regions while serving customers globally. Users employ VPNs and decentralized platforms to circumvent geographic restrictions.

This cat-and-mouse game between regulators and market participants may prove unsustainable. As staking grows and attracts more mainstream participation, regulatory pressure will intensify. Major economies may demand compliance from platforms serving their citizens regardless of business location. International coordination could establish baseline standards limiting regulatory arbitrage opportunities.

The question becomes whether staking can mature into a widely accepted financial activity with clear global rules, or whether it remains perpetually in regulatory gray zones. The former enables institutional adoption and retail participation at scale. The latter confines staking to sophisticated users comfortable operating in uncertain legal territory, limiting its ultimate impact.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency staking represents a fundamental innovation in blockchain consensus mechanisms and digital asset economics. By replacing energy-intensive mining with capital commitment, Proof-of-Stake networks achieve security while enabling token holders to earn returns by supporting network operations. This elegant alignment of incentives has transformed staking from a technical curiosity into a major pillar of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

The mechanics enable anyone holding compatible cryptocurrencies to generate yields by locking assets to facilitate transaction validation. Returns ranging from 3% to over 10% annually substantially exceed most traditional fixed-income investments, explaining staking's growing popularity. Yet these attractive nominal yields come with considerable principal volatility, lock-up periods limiting liquidity, and unique risks including slashing penalties and smart contract vulnerabilities.

The choice between centralized exchanges and decentralized protocols involves fundamental tradeoffs between convenience and control. Exchanges offer familiar interfaces and simplified user experiences at the cost of custody risk and higher fees. Decentralized protocols maximize security and yields while demanding greater technical sophistication and user responsibility. Liquid staking solutions attempt bridging this gap, though they introduce centralization concerns at the network level.

Regulatory approaches vary dramatically across jurisdictions. Europe's MiCA framework establishes comprehensive rules for staking service providers while permitting the underlying activity, creating clarity for both businesses and users. The United States pursues aggressive enforcement treating many staking programs as unregistered securities, drastically limiting options for American participants. Asian and Middle Eastern jurisdictions demonstrate diverse strategies ranging from supportive frameworks to restrictive taxation.

For cryptocurrency holders considering staking, the decision requires careful analysis beyond simply comparing annual percentage yields. One must evaluate token fundamentals, assess custodial arrangements and counterparty risks, understand unbonding periods and liquidity constraints, calculate after-tax returns given applicable tax treatment, and monitor evolving regulatory developments in relevant jurisdictions.

Staking has evolved from niche technical functionality to a potentially transformative mechanism for digital asset allocation. Whether it achieves widespread mainstream adoption depends on resolving current tensions between user convenience and network decentralization, establishing sustainable regulatory frameworks that protect consumers without stifling innovation, and demonstrating that staking rewards represent genuine economic value rather than merely redistributed inflation. The answers to these questions will determine whether staking becomes a lasting pillar of the financial landscape or remains confined to the cryptocurrency ecosystem's more experimental edges.

References and Further Reading

European Securities and Markets Authority. (2024). "Questions and Answers on MiCA Regulation - Crypto-Asset Service Providers." ESMA Publications. https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/2067

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2023). "SEC Charges Kraken for Operating as an Unregistered Securities Exchange and Broker." SEC Press Release 2023-25. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-25

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2023). "SEC Charges Coinbase for Operating as an Unregistered Securities Exchange, Broker, and Clearing Agency." SEC Press Release 2023-102. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-102

Chainalysis. (2024). "Crypto Staking: Overview, How it Works, & Future Trends." Chainalysis Research Reports. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto-staking/

BlockApps Inc. (2024). "Staking in Crypto: Understanding Passive Income Differences." BlockApps Blog. https://blockapps.net/blog/staking-in-crypto-understanding-passive-income-differences/

BlockApps Inc. (2024). "Staking in Crypto: A Comprehensive Overview of Staking Regulations." BlockApps Blog. https://blockapps.net/blog/staking-in-crypto-a-comprehensive-overview-of-staking-regulations/

Trust Wallet. (2024). "Decentralized Staking vs. Centralized Staking: A Complete Guide." Trust Wallet Blog. https://trustwallet.com/blog/staking/decentralized-staking-vs-centralized-staking

Gemini. (2024). "What Is Staking in Crypto: How It Works, Examples, and How To Start." Gemini Cryptopedia. https://www.gemini.com/en-AU/cryptopedia/staking-crypto

Nasdaq. (2023). "Ethereum Staking in 2023: A Year of Growth and Transformation." Nasdaq Insights. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ethereum-staking-in-2023:-a-year-of-growth-and-transformation

Forbes. (2023). "Ethereum's Centralized And Decentralized Liquid Staking Providers Battle For Dominance." Forbes Crypto & Blockchain. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeorshimron/2023/01/21/ethereums-centralized-and-decentralized-liquid-staking-providers-battle-for-dominance/

Last updated: November 12, 2025