Net APR, Not Headline Rate, Is Your Real Staking Return

Custodial vs Non-Custodial Staking: What the Terms Actually Mean

Custodial staking is a model where a centralized exchange — Coinbase, Kraken, or Binance — takes possession of your private keys and operates validator infrastructure on your behalf, meaning you never interact directly with the Ethereum blockchain. Non-custodial staking, by contrast, lets you retain full control of your private keys; you delegate tokens to validators via smart contracts, and your funds are never transferred to a third party. The distinction is not semantic — it determines who bears the counterparty risk, who earns the full protocol reward, and what recourse you have if something goes wrong. As of May 2026, approximately 35.86 million ETH representing 28.91% of total supply is staked across roughly 1.1 million active validators, according to Datawallet's 2026 Ethereum staking statistics. How that stake is distributed across custodial and non-custodial infrastructure has direct implications for both individual yield and Ethereum's systemic security. Understanding the structural differences between these two models is the prerequisite for every yield and risk comparison that follows.

Quick Answer: Custodial staking (Coinbase, Kraken) transfers key control to the exchange and runs validators on your behalf; non-custodial staking (Lido, Rocket Pool) keeps your keys with you and delegates via smart contracts. In 2026, net ETH APRs range from 2.28% (Coinbase) to 3.46% (Rocket Pool) — commission structure, not headline APY, is the decisive variable.

In a custodial arrangement, the exchange assumes full operational responsibility for validator nodes: it pools your ETH, collects consensus and MEV rewards, deducts a commission — typically 26–35% — and credits the remainder to your exchange account balance. According to CEX.io University's staking explainer, the practical consequence is that users see a single net-yield number with no visibility into how gross rewards are calculated or how commissions are deducted. This opacity is the root cause of most yield comparison errors among retail participants and makes direct platform comparison genuinely difficult without reverse-engineering the commission rate from the gap between gross and net figures.

Non-custodial staking operates differently at a structural level. When you delegate to a validator through Rocket Pool or stake into Lido, your wallet signs a transaction authorizing the validator to include your ETH in their operation — but the funds remain on-chain, associated with your address, not the validator's. Non-custodial validators typically charge a commission of under 10% of staking rewards and distribute the remainder directly via smart contract. This structure is confirmed by the CFC St. Moritz custody analysis: in non-custodial setups, there is "no actual transfer of funds" to the validator — the network simply associates the wallet address with validator infrastructure. The economic outcome for the delegator is higher net yield; the security outcome is the elimination of exchange counterparty risk.

Liquid staking tokens — stETH from Lido and rETH from Rocket Pool — are on-chain receipt tokens issued when you deposit ETH into a liquid staking protocol. They are tradeable on secondary markets and usable as collateral in DeFi lending protocols, which means you do not sacrifice liquidity to earn staking yields. stETH rebases daily to reflect accrued rewards; rETH appreciates in value relative to ETH as rewards accumulate. Custodial exchange staking produces no equivalent receipt token — your position exists only as a platform-internal ledger entry, preventing parallel DeFi deployment of the same capital. This composability gap is a structural, non-yield advantage for non-custodial liquid staking that compounds over time for active DeFi participants.

2026 Net Yield Breakdown: Commission-Adjusted APR by Platform

The base Ethereum consensus APY in 2026 is approximately 3.3%, comprising roughly 2.84% in consensus layer rewards plus MEV and priority fees, with MEV-Boost adoption adding a further 1.2–1.5% annual yield for validators that opt in, according to Datawallet's 2026 Ethereum staking statistics. This gross figure is the starting point for every staking product on the market — but commission structure transforms identical underlying rewards into materially different net outcomes for delegators. Understanding the arithmetic — gross yield multiplied by one minus the commission rate — is the single most important analytical skill for evaluating any staking product in 2026. Platforms that display only gross APY while burying commission rates create a systematic information asymmetry that retail investors regularly misread, resulting in yield disappointment after the first reward cycle.

Custodial exchanges extract the largest share of rewards. Coinbase charges approximately 35% commission on ETH staking rewards for standard accounts, reducing a 3.5% gross rate to approximately 2.28% net. Coinbase One subscribers receive a reduced commission of roughly 26.3%, improving net yield to approximately 2.58%. Kraken charges 26–30% commission depending on product tier, delivering approximately 2.59% net from the same gross rate. These figures are drawn from Coin Bureau's 2026 Ethereum staking pool analysis. Neither platform prominently discloses commission rates on their primary staking interfaces; users must calculate the difference between the stated gross APY and the credited net yield to determine the actual commission being charged.

Non-custodial liquid staking protocols apply significantly lower commission rates. Lido charges a flat 10% of rewards, producing approximately 2.4% net APR on its $26.36 billion TVL. Rocket Pool applies a node operator commission of approximately 14% on MEV and execution rewards specifically (not on total gross yield), resulting in the highest net APR among major liquid staking protocols at roughly 3.46%. The yield advantage of Rocket Pool over Coinbase is approximately 118 basis points annually — a material gap on any substantial principal held across multiple years. For Solana stakers, Jito's JitoSOL delivers approximately 5.80% APY, reflecting Solana's higher base inflation rate rather than a fee efficiency advantage over ETH protocols.

"The critical takeaway is that commission-adjusted net yield — not headline gross APY — is the only meaningful comparison metric. A platform advertising 19.67% gross APY with a 39.95% commission delivers materially less than one showing 22% gross at a 26% cut." — CEX.io University, Custodial and Non-Custodial Staking Explained

EigenLayer adds a further dimension: restaking allows the same ETH to simultaneously secure additional services — Actively Validated Services (AVSs) — generating incremental yield on top of base consensus APR. With $15.3 billion in TVL and 4.65 million ETH deployed, EigenLayer dominates the restaking vertical with 93.9% market share, per Coin Bureau's analysis. The variable AVS reward structure means EigenLayer yields are not comparable to fixed-rate staking products; actual net returns depend on which AVSs the restaked ETH is securing and those operators' reward schedules.

Custodial Staking Security Risks: Counterparty, Insolvency & Regulation

Custodial staking concentrates three distinct risk categories — counterparty insolvency, regulatory seizure, and systemic concentration — into a single product structure that retail investors frequently underestimate when comparing it against non-custodial alternatives. When you stake through a centralized exchange, your ETH is legally under the control of that entity. Should the exchange become insolvent, face a regulatory enforcement action, or restrict withdrawals, your staked assets can become inaccessible for months or indefinitely — with no contractual timeline for resolution. This is not a theoretical failure mode. The 2022 collapses of Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX each resulted in the freezing of staking-related balances before bankruptcy proceedings resolved, according to Everstake's custodial staking risk analysis. In each case, users with custodial positions waited months to years for partial recoveries through legal proceedings, with no assurance of full return on their staked principal.

"Custodial staking transfers asset control to a third party, creating direct counterparty risk. Should the exchange become insolvent, face regulatory seizure, or suspend withdrawals, staked assets can become inaccessible. The collapses of Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX are concrete precedents — all three froze staking-related balances before bankruptcy proceedings concluded." — BitGo, Custodial vs Non-Custodial Wallet Analysis (December 2025)

Regulatory seizure risk compounds the insolvency scenario with a distinct mechanism. As digital asset regulatory frameworks continue to evolve across jurisdictions, custodial holdings are directly exposed to jurisdiction-specific asset freezes that cannot affect self-custodied wallets. A regulator can compel a licensed exchange to freeze customer assets; it cannot compel a smart contract operating on a permissionless network. This asymmetry is particularly relevant for participants in jurisdictions where crypto enforcement patterns remain active and evolving — including the EU, multiple Asia-Pacific markets, and the United States, where the regulatory posture toward exchange-operated staking products continues to develop. BitGo's December 2025 analysis notes that 28% of U.S. adults — approximately 65 million people — now hold digital assets, a scale that is accelerating regulatory attention toward custodial platform operations.

Concentration risk extends the individual account concern to a systemic level. According to Datawallet's Ethereum staking data, Binance currently controls 38.74% of exchange-controlled ETH (approximately 3.3 million ETH), while Coinbase holds 21.69% (approximately 1.8 million ETH). A single adverse event — regulatory action, a security incident, or a liquidity crisis — at either institution would expose a significant share of Ethereum's validator set to simultaneous disruption. This single-point-of-failure structure is precisely what decentralized consensus mechanisms are architecturally designed to prevent.

Finally, custodial staking forfeits governance participation as a structural feature. Approximately 28.2% of all staked ETH held on custodial platforms cannot participate in Ethereum on-chain governance votes, as the exchange controls the keys and therefore the validator's on-chain presence, per Everstake's analysis. For participants who view protocol governance as a meaningful component of their ETH position, this forfeiture represents a real, if non-financial, cost of the custodial model.

Non-Custodial Staking Security Risks: Smart Contracts, Slashing & Oracles

Non-custodial staking eliminates counterparty risk but introduces a distinct set of failure modes: smart contract exploits, validator slashing penalties, oracle manipulation, and — for EigenLayer participants — compounded slashing exposure across multiple services. These risks are material and historically documented; they cannot be dismissed as edge cases. The defining structural advantage of non-custodial staking is that delegators experience no actual transfer of funds to the validator. As the CFC St. Moritz industry analysis confirms, the network simply associates the wallet address with the validator infrastructure — meaning the on-chain asset remains associated with the delegator's address throughout the staking period. What changes is the risk surface: instead of exchange solvency, participants must evaluate protocol code quality, validator operational reliability, and oracle integrity.

"In non-custodial setups, there is no actual transfer of funds to the validator — the network simply associates the wallet address with the validator infrastructure. The primary risks are operational: smart contract behavior, validator uptime, and protocol governance, not third-party custody." — CFC St. Moritz, Clarifying Custody: Non-Custodial Staking (2025)

Smart contract exploit risk is the most acute category for protocol-level non-custodial staking. A bug in a liquid staking protocol's code can drain pooled ETH before any governance response is possible. DeFi's exploit history demonstrates this is not theoretical — multiple protocols have suffered losses in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars over the past four years. Reputable liquid staking protocols address this through independent code audits, formal verification where applicable, and active bug bounty programs. According to Stakely's staking analysis, platforms holding certifications such as ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC2 Type 2 provide a higher baseline of operational assurance. Participants should verify that any protocol they use has current, publicly accessible audit reports before committing material capital.

Validator slashing is a penalty mechanism built into Ethereum's consensus protocol. Validators that double-sign blocks or remain offline for extended periods face partial confiscation of their staked ETH. As a non-custodial delegator, you bear a proportional share of this penalty if your chosen validator is slashed. Reputable validators with sustained high uptime make slashing events rare in practice, but the risk cannot be reduced to zero. Slashing insurance products have emerged as a partial mitigation, allowing delegators to transfer this tail risk to an insurance counterparty for a fee.

Oracle manipulation is an attack vector specific to liquid staking token mechanisms. If a price feed reporting the stETH/ETH or rETH/ETH exchange rate is compromised, redemption rates for liquid staking tokens can be distorted — affecting DeFi positions that use these tokens as collateral. Cross-protocol diversification, holding a mix of stETH and rETH rather than concentrating in a single liquid staking token, reduces aggregate oracle exposure. EigenLayer's restaking model introduces a structurally distinct risk layer: the same ETH is simultaneously exposed to Ethereum base-layer slashing and to slashing by individual AVS operators, compounding the penalty surface in a way that does not exist in standard delegation or custodial products. Participants should treat EigenLayer restaking as a higher-risk instrument that requires active monitoring of AVS operator quality and penalty parameters.

Protocol Comparison: Lido, Rocket Pool, EigenLayer, Coinbase & Kraken

The five dominant staking venues in 2026 — Lido, Rocket Pool, EigenLayer, Coinbase, and Kraken — occupy distinct positions on the yield-risk-decentralization spectrum, and no single protocol leads across all three dimensions simultaneously. Lido holds 24.2% of total staked ETH market share, representing 8.7 million ETH and $26.36 billion TVL, delivering approximately 2.4% net APR after its 10% commission, according to Coin Bureau's 2026 staking pool analysis. It is the most liquid and widely integrated liquid staking protocol, with stETH accepted as collateral across the broadest range of DeFi lending platforms. Its dominant market share, however, has generated an ongoing protocol-level debate about whether a single entity controlling nearly a quarter of all staked ETH represents an unacceptable centralization risk to Ethereum's consensus mechanism.

Rocket Pool takes an architecturally distinct approach: its mini-pool model requires node operators to stake a portion of their own ETH alongside delegated ETH, creating direct alignment between operator incentives and delegator outcomes. The result is a more decentralized operator set, the highest net APR among major liquid staking protocols at approximately 3.46%, and a TVL of $1.76 billion — far smaller than Lido but representative of genuine structural decentralization. For participants who prioritize both yield quality and protocol decentralization, Rocket Pool presents the most balanced non-custodial liquid staking option currently operating on Ethereum.

EigenLayer occupies a unique category — it is not a standalone staking protocol but a restaking layer that enables ETH already committed to Ethereum's consensus mechanism (or via Lido/Rocket Pool) to simultaneously secure additional Actively Validated Services. With $15.3 billion in TVL, 4.65 million ETH deployed, and 93.9% of the restaking market, EigenLayer is the dominant infrastructure for yield amplification on Ethereum as of mid-2026. The incremental yield above base ETH APR is real, but so is the compounded slashing exposure: each AVS adds an independent penalty surface on top of Ethereum base-layer slashing. EigenLayer is not suited for participants seeking a passive, low-maintenance staking position.

Jito extends the liquid staking model to Solana, delivering approximately 5.80% APY via JitoSOL — the highest headline yield among major chain staking products in 2026. This reflects Solana's higher base inflation rate and MEV extraction mechanics, not a fee structure advantage over ETH protocols. Comparing Jito's APY directly to ETH staking APRs without accounting for chain-level differences in inflation, tokenomics, and underlying asset price volatility produces a misleading yield picture.

Ethereum Staking Market Structure in 2026: Concentration & Systemic Risk

Ethereum's staking market in 2026 is large, liquid, and increasingly concentrated — a combination that demands attention from anyone with a material ETH staking position. As of May 2026, 35.86 million ETH representing 28.91% of the total ETH supply is locked in staking contracts across approximately 1.1 million active validators, providing an estimated $112 billion in economic security to the network, according to Datawallet's Ethereum staking statistics. The sheer scale of capital deployed makes the distribution of that stake — who controls which validators and in what concentration — a question of systemic significance that extends well beyond individual portfolio risk management. Network security is only as robust as the distribution of the validators providing it.

Approximately 28–30% of all staked ETH currently sits with centralized custodial platforms. This concentration creates a systemic vulnerability for Ethereum's consensus layer: if regulatory authorities in a major jurisdiction moved simultaneously against dominant custodial exchanges, a significant fraction of Ethereum's validator set could face disruption at the same moment. Binance currently controls 38.74% of exchange-controlled ETH (approximately 3.3 million ETH) and Coinbase holds 21.69% (approximately 1.8 million ETH). These concentrations represent a single-point-of-failure profile that decentralized consensus mechanisms are architecturally intended to prevent. From a protocol health perspective, the current custodial distribution is a structural weakness regardless of the operational quality of the exchanges involved.

Lido's approximately 24% single-entity share of total staked ETH has generated a formal, ongoing protocol-level debate about whether staking concentration caps should be introduced at the Ethereum application layer. Critics argue that any single liquid staking protocol controlling more than one-third of all validators could theoretically influence finality — a threshold Lido has not crossed but approaches in aggregate validator set influence. Proponents note that Lido's validator set consists of multiple independent node operators, meaningfully diluting the practical censorship risk relative to a single custodial actor controlling an equivalent volume.

The implications of a dominant custodian facing regulatory action extend beyond direct users. A sudden reduction in the active validator count — triggered by a regulatory freeze of a major custodial exchange — could temporarily affect Ethereum's network liveness and increase withdrawal queue congestion for all stakers, not only those on the affected platform. This systemic dimension means the staking market structure is a concern for all Ethereum participants, regardless of which custody model they personally use. Protocol-level diversity of stake distribution is a public good; concentration across a small number of platforms, whether custodial or non-custodial, erodes it.

Which Staking Approach Fits Your Risk Profile?

Selecting a staking approach is not a yield-maximization exercise in isolation — it requires mapping four variables simultaneously: custody comfort, technical capability, net yield priority, and jurisdiction-specific regulatory exposure. No single approach dominates across all four dimensions. Custodial staking on Coinbase or Kraken offers the simplest onboarding path and requires zero technical knowledge, but delivers the lowest net APR in the 2026 market (2.28–2.59%) and transfers full counterparty risk to the exchange operator. For participants who prioritize operational simplicity and are accepting of exchange-level risk on smaller positions, custodial staking is a coherent choice. It is not appropriate for large positions where counterparty concentration risk is material, or for participants in jurisdictions with active regulatory enforcement against custodial crypto platforms.

"Staking as a service is not one-size-fits-all. Retail and institutional participants should evaluate yield in the context of operational complexity, custody model, and the regulatory environment of their jurisdiction — not as a standalone number." — Figment, Staking as a Service Insights (2025)

Non-custodial liquid staking via Lido or Rocket Pool represents the highest-value upgrade for participants who want better net yields while retaining key custody. Lido's stETH offers deep DeFi integration and approximately 2.4% net APR; Rocket Pool's rETH delivers the best net APR among liquid protocols (approximately 3.46%) with a more decentralized operator model. Both require accepting smart contract risk — the protocol code behaves as documented and audited — and both produce tradeable receipt tokens that preserve DeFi composability. For most retail participants who have moved beyond basic exchange use, non-custodial liquid staking offers the most favorable yield-per-unit-of-complexity across the current product landscape.

Solo validator operation — running your own Ethereum validator node with a minimum 32 ETH deposit — provides maximum yield (no commission deducted at all) and directly contributes to Ethereum's decentralization. The trade-off is a meaningful technical and operational commitment: a validator that goes offline loses attestation rewards proportionally to downtime, and sustained downtime or double-signing triggers slashing. Hardware, bandwidth, and monitoring infrastructure add ongoing costs that offset some of the yield advantage. Solo validation is appropriate for technically capable participants with a multi-year ETH commitment and the resources to maintain consistent uptime without relying on a third party.

EigenLayer restaking is a yield amplification strategy with a compounded risk profile that makes it unsuitable for passive stakers. Simultaneously securing multiple AVSs generates incremental rewards above the base ETH APR, but each additional AVS adds an independent slashing surface. The $15.3 billion deployed via EigenLayer demonstrates that significant capital has accepted this risk profile — but participants should treat EigenLayer as an active portfolio management exercise requiring continuous evaluation of AVS operator quality, not a set-and-forget yield product. The decision framework across all approaches: weigh custody comfort first, technical capability second, net yield priority third, and jurisdiction-specific regulatory risk throughout.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the actual net ETH staking APR in 2026 after fees?

Net ETH staking APR in 2026 varies significantly by platform due to differing commission structures applied to a similar gross reward base. The base Ethereum consensus gross APY is approximately 3.3% — comprising 2.84% consensus rewards plus MEV and priority fees — according to Datawallet's 2026 data. After commissions, net returns break down as follows: Rocket Pool approximately 3.46% (highest among major liquid staking protocols), Kraken approximately 2.59%, Lido approximately 2.4%, and Coinbase approximately 2.28% for standard accounts. Commission rate — not the advertised headline gross APY — is the only number that matters for accurate yield comparison. A protocol advertising a high gross APY with a high commission percentage can deliver lower net yield than a protocol showing a more modest gross rate at a lower commission. Always calculate: gross rate × (1 − commission rate) to derive the true net return.

Is custodial staking on Coinbase or Kraken safe?

Coinbase and Kraken are operationally reliable, regulated platforms with established compliance histories — but custodial staking through any exchange is not without meaningful risk. The primary risk is counterparty exposure: if the exchange becomes insolvent, faces regulatory seizure, or suspends withdrawals, your staked assets can become inaccessible, potentially for extended periods. This is not theoretical: Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX all froze staking-related balances before their bankruptcy proceedings resolved, as documented by BitGo's December 2025 analysis. Custodial staking on reputable exchanges is appropriate for smaller positions where simplicity outweighs custody considerations, but concentrating large ETH stakes with a single custodial entity introduces meaningful counterparty risk that non-custodial alternatives can eliminate.

Can you lose staked ETH in non-custodial protocols?

Yes. Non-custodial staking carries documented failure modes across three primary categories. First, smart contract exploits: a bug in a liquid staking protocol's code can drain pooled ETH before governance can respond — DeFi's exploit history makes this concrete, not hypothetical. Second, validator slashing: Ethereum's consensus mechanism penalizes validators that double-sign blocks or sustain extended downtime through partial confiscation of staked ETH; non-custodial delegators bear a proportional share. Third, oracle manipulation: distorted price feeds can affect liquid staking token redemption rates, creating losses for DeFi positions collateralized by stETH or rETH. EigenLayer restaking adds AVS-level slashing on top of base Ethereum slashing, compounding the potential loss surface further. These risks are manageable — through protocol selection based on audit quality, cross-protocol diversification, and slashing insurance products — but they cannot be eliminated. Any claim that non-custodial staking is risk-free should be treated with skepticism.

What is liquid staking and how does stETH work?

Liquid staking is a model where you deposit ETH into a protocol — such as Lido — and receive a tradeable on-chain receipt token (stETH) representing your staked position plus accrued rewards. The receipt token can be traded on secondary markets or used as collateral in DeFi lending protocols without unstaking, solving the core problem of standard Ethereum staking: capital lockup. stETH from Lido uses a rebasing mechanism — your stETH balance increases daily as staking rewards accrue, while the token price tracks ETH. rETH from Rocket Pool works differently: your token balance remains constant, but the rETH/ETH exchange rate appreciates over time as rewards accumulate in the protocol. Both mechanisms deliver equivalent economic outcomes; the difference is accounting convention. According to Coin Bureau's 2026 analysis, Lido's stETH holds $26.36 billion in TVL — the scale reflects market adoption of the model's core value proposition: earning staking yield without forfeiting DeFi composability.

What is EigenLayer restaking and is the extra yield worth the risk?

EigenLayer is a restaking protocol that allows ETH already staked on Ethereum — or deposited via liquid staking protocols — to simultaneously secure additional services called Actively Validated Services (AVSs). Each AVS operator pays incremental rewards in exchange for this cryptoeconomic security, generating yield on top of the base ETH consensus APR. With $15.3 billion in TVL and 4.65 million ETH deployed, EigenLayer holds 93.9% of the restaking market and represents significant institutional and sophisticated retail interest in the model, per Coin Bureau's 2026 data. Whether the extra yield is worth the risk depends entirely on the participant. For technically informed users who actively evaluate AVS operator quality, understand slashing conditions, and monitor their positions, EigenLayer can be a rational yield enhancement. For passive stakers unfamiliar with slashing mechanics or unable to actively monitor AVS operator performance, the compounded slashing risk — on top of base Ethereum slashing — makes it an inappropriate product category.

Staking in 2026: Structuring Your Position for Both Yield and Resilience

The custodial versus non-custodial staking decision ultimately resolves to a single structural trade-off: operational simplicity and counterparty risk on one side; technical engagement and protocol risk on the other. Custodial exchanges eliminate operational overhead but transfer asset control to a third party with documented historical failure modes — Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX are permanent benchmarks for what custodial concentration risk looks like under stress. Non-custodial liquid staking preserves key custody and delivers superior net yields but requires evaluating protocol audit quality, accepting smart contract risk, and understanding receipt token mechanics. Neither model is universally superior; the correct allocation depends on position size, technical engagement level, and the participant's specific regulatory exposure.

The 2026 Ethereum staking landscape is structurally more sophisticated than it was at the Merge in September 2022. Liquid staking tokens have achieved deep DeFi integration, EigenLayer has introduced a yield amplification layer with corresponding risk dimensions, and custodial products have consolidated into a smaller number of dominant platforms with significant market share. This consolidation raises the systemic stakes of platform selection: individual choices aggregate into a market structure that either reinforces or undermines Ethereum's decentralization properties. Participants who use non-custodial protocols — particularly Rocket Pool with its mini-pool model — contribute to a healthier validator distribution as a direct side effect of optimizing their own net yield.

For most retail participants, the practical starting point is Rocket Pool for non-custodial liquid staking — best net APR at approximately 3.46%, genuine operator-level decentralization, and rETH composability across DeFi — or Kraken if platform simplicity is the overriding constraint. EigenLayer restaking is a logical next step for participants who have internalized liquid staking mechanics and want to actively optimize yield across AVS positions. Solo validation remains the highest-commitment, highest-decentralization option for technically capable participants with the required 32 ETH minimum and the infrastructure to sustain consistent uptime. In every case: verify current audit status, calculate commission-adjusted net yield before committing capital, and avoid concentrating material positions with any single custodial entity.

Last updated: 2026-05-12. This article reflects Ethereum staking data and protocol parameters as of May 2026. Staking yields, commission structures, TVL figures, and market share data are subject to change with network conditions, protocol governance decisions, and market dynamics. Verify current figures directly with each platform or protocol before making staking decisions. Nothing in this article constitutes financial advice.