A failed Australian crypto trader who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for murdering his mother has been given less than two days by the country’s Court of Appeals to prove he didn’t kill her to get his hands on a $1.2 million insurance payout.

Andre Rebelo was found guilty in December 2024 of the 2020 killing of his mother Colleen Rebelo. A court found that he had killed her and staged her body to make her death look like natural causes.

The West Australian reports that from September 16, Rebelo’s lawyers will have around a day and a half to convince the court of Rebelo’s claim that his mother died from a cardiac episode caused by a genetic mutation.

They will also argue that he couldn’t have been present due to the timings of her shower’s hot water system.

Rebelo forged mother’s will before murder

Rebelo and his social media influencer girlfriend, Grace Piscopo, reportedly lived a lavish lifestyle and Rebelo claimed that he’d made more than $500,000 trading cryptocurrencies.

However, prosecutors say this was a lie and the couple actually possessed over $100,000 worth of debt.

Colleen Rebelo was found dead in the shower of her home. Despite the death not initially being treated as suspicious, her insurance provider submitted a fraud report two years later.

It was subsequently discovered that her son had taken out three life insurance policies in her name days before her death, forged her will, and tried to cash it in days later.

Stake.com and Bet365 stand on opposite sides of the online betting world. Stake.com is one of the top names in crypto gambling, while Bet365 has spent decades building trust as a major fiat-based operator. Both pull in huge global audiences. But the market is shifting, and a fresh group of crypto-first casinos is starting to grab attention next to these giants. ZunaBet, which launched in 2026, is one of the names becoming part of that story.

Here is a closer look at how Stake.com and Bet365 compare, and where ZunaBet is starting to stake out its own space as a platform worth keeping an eye on.

Two Leaders From Different Sides

Stake.com launched in 2017 and quickly grew into one of the most recognized crypto casinos around. It runs on crypto from the ground up, supports a wide range of coins, and pairs its casino with a full sportsbook. Big-name sponsorships in UFC and football have pushed it into the mainstream, even though it sits outside the regulated US market.

Bet365 has been running since 2000 and is one of the largest privately owned betting brands in the world. It started in the UK and grew into a global operator offering a full sportsbook, casino, poker, and bingo all under one account. Payments go through standard channels like cards, bank transfers, and e-wallets, with strict regulation in every market it works in.

Both are trusted on their own turf. Stake.com leads on the crypto side, and Bet365 leads on the traditional side. But both also have limits. Bet365 is tied to fiat payments and regional rules, while Stake.com is blocked in some markets and now faces a growing list of crypto-first rivals chasing similar players.

ZunaBet Steps Onto the Scene

ZunaBet is a newer name picking up traction since its 2026 launch. It is owned by Strathvale Group Ltd and operates under an Anjouan gaming license. The biggest difference between ZunaBet and the older brands is in the design. ZunaBet was built around crypto from day one and is positioning itself as a fresh option on the crypto-first side, with a lineup that even traditional players would respect.

The casino runs more than 11,000 games from over 60 providers, including top studios like Pragmatic Play, Hacksaw Gaming, Yggdrasil, BGaming, and Evolution. That library puts it among the bigger crypto-focused offerings in the market and easily beats what Bet365 can carry in most regulated regions. Slots, table games, and live dealer rooms all sit under one account.

A full sportsbook is part of the package too. It covers football, basketball, tennis, NHL, and the other major sports, plus esports like CS2, Dota 2, League of Legends, and Valorant. Virtual sports and combat sports finish out the menu. That puts ZunaBet in the same hybrid lane as both Stake.com and Bet365.

Crypto vs Fiat at Work

This is where the split between these brands is easiest to see. Bet365 mainly handles fiat. That means bank processing times, possible holds, and slower payouts depending on the method. It works well for players who want a regulated, familiar setup but falls behind on speed.

Stake.com and ZunaBet both run on crypto. ZunaBet supports more than 20 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT across multiple chains, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, and XRP. There are no platform fees on transactions, and withdrawals move quickly. For players who already hold crypto or just want quicker, cheaper transfers, that is a real edge over fiat-based brands.

Crypto platforms also tend to run globally instead of being tied to certain regulated regions. Players in many countries can use the full casino and sportsbook without dealing with the patchwork rules that come with brands like Bet365. For a generation that already lives much of its life in digital, crypto-friendly spaces, that lines up with how they expect any modern platform to work.

Welcome Bonus Differences

Bet365 runs welcome offers that change heavily by region, usually a deposit match or a smaller bonus for new sign-ups. Wagering requirements tend to be tight on the casino side. Stake.com runs its own promotions, but its welcome offer is lighter than what some crypto rivals push, with more attention on reload bonuses and rakeback for active players.

ZunaBet offers a welcome package worth up to $5,000 plus 75 free spins, spread across three deposits. The first deposit gets a 100% match up to $2,000 plus 25 spins. The second adds a 50% match up to $1,500 plus 25 spins. The third gives another 100% match up to $1,500 plus 25 spins. Marketed as a 250% bonus over three deposits, it gives new players more time to explore the platform than a one-shot welcome offer.

Loyalty: Three Different Styles

Bet365 keeps its loyalty quiet, leaning on personalised offers that show up in player accounts based on activity. Stake.com runs a strong VIP program built around rakeback, reloads, and milestone bonuses, which has helped it hold onto long-term players. Both work, but Bet365 follows the traditional loyalty card formula while Stake.com leans hard on rakeback as the main draw.

ZunaBet takes a different approach by blending rakeback with gamified progression. Its loyalty program is built around a dragon evolution theme with a mascot called Zuno. There are six tiers: Squire at 1% rakeback, Warden at 2%, Champion at 4%, Divine at 5%, Knight at 10%, and Ultimate at 20% rakeback at the top.

Players also pick up tier-based free spins up to 1,000 spins, VIP club access, and double wheel spins as they climb. The whole setup feels more like leveling up in a game than swiping a points card or just chasing flat rakeback. For players who enjoy that kind of system, it lands harder than either a standard VIP setup or a plain rakeback program.

Why ZunaBet Belongs on Your Radar

Bet365 still makes sense for players who want a long-running, well-regulated betting experience, and Stake.com remains one of the strongest names on the crypto side. Both have earned their place. But what players want from these platforms is changing fast. Quick payouts, deeper libraries, and more engaging rewards are turning into baseline expectations rather than nice extras.

ZunaBet is built around that baseline. The crypto-first foundation means fast payments and low fees. The game library outpaces what most established brands carry. The sportsbook covers traditional sports and esports under one roof. The dragon loyalty program turns regular play into a journey with clear rewards at every step.

For players who want speed, variety, and a more modern feel, ZunaBet is one of the most exciting options on the market right now. It is still an emerging platform, but the direction is clear. A new generation of players expects crypto support, gamified rewards, and global access as standard features, not extras layered on top.

Stake.com and Bet365 shaped what online betting looks like today. ZunaBet is one of the platforms shaping what comes next.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) was created to challenge traditional financial systems by offering open, permissionless, and transparent alternatives to banking, lending, trading, and asset management. Over the past few years, the industry has demonstrated remarkable innovation, attracting billions of dollars in capital and creating entirely new financial primitives.

Yet while many discussions focus on external threats—regulatory uncertainty, centralized institutions, or macroeconomic conditions—the greatest challenge facing DeFi today may come from within.

The biggest threat to DeFi is internal competition.

Not competition itself, which is healthy and necessary for innovation, but the increasingly fragmented and adversarial nature of competition that divides liquidity, duplicates infrastructure, confuses users, and weakens the ecosystem as a whole.

The Fragmentation Problem

Every new DeFi cycle introduces dozens of protocols attempting to solve similar problems.

Multiple decentralized exchanges compete for the same liquidity.

Multiple lending protocols compete for the same borrowers and lenders.

Multiple Layer 1s and Layer 2s compete for developers and users.

Multiple yield platforms compete for capital.

While competition encourages innovation, excessive fragmentation creates inefficiencies.

Liquidity becomes scattered across numerous platforms, reducing capital efficiency and increasing slippage. Users are forced to navigate a growing number of protocols, wallets, bridges, and interfaces. Developers spend valuable resources recreating products that already exist instead of building entirely new financial infrastructure.

Rather than creating a unified financial ecosystem, DeFi often resembles a collection of isolated islands.

Liquidity Wars Are Costly

Liquidity is the lifeblood of DeFi.

To attract users, protocols frequently launch aggressive incentive programs that distribute large quantities of governance tokens. While this strategy can rapidly increase Total Value Locked (TVL), it often creates short-term participants rather than long-term users.

Capital flows toward the highest yield opportunities, only to leave when incentives decline.

This phenomenon creates what many refer to as “mercenary liquidity”—capital that lacks loyalty to a protocol’s long-term vision.

As protocols engage in continuous liquidity wars, they consume treasury resources, dilute token holders, and generate limited sustainable growth.

The result is an ecosystem focused on attracting temporary capital rather than building durable financial products.

Fork Culture and Feature Replication

One of DeFi’s strengths is open-source development.

Anyone can inspect code, improve it, and launch new versions.

However, this openness also encourages rapid replication.

When a protocol introduces a successful innovation, competitors often copy the feature within weeks. This creates a cycle in which differentiation becomes increasingly difficult and genuine innovation yields a shorter period of competitive advantage.

Many projects find themselves competing over marginal improvements rather than delivering transformative breakthroughs.

As a result, resources that could be directed toward research, security, and user experience are often spent trying to outperform nearly identical competitors.

User Attention Is Limited

DeFi protocols frequently underestimate a simple reality:

User attention is scarce.

The average user cannot actively monitor dozens of ecosystems, governance proposals, yield opportunities, and token incentives.

As the number of protocols expands, onboarding becomes more difficult.

New users entering DeFi encounter:

• Multiple wallets
• Multiple chains
• Numerous bridges
• Complex governance systems
• Constantly changing incentives

Instead of making decentralized finance more accessible, excessive competition often increases complexity.

This complexity slows adoption and limits the industry’s ability to reach mainstream audiences.

Builders Competing Against Builders

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of internal competition is that builders increasingly compete against one another for the same resources.

Projects compete for:

• Developers
• Venture funding
• Liquidity
• Community attention
• Partnerships
• Market narratives

Rather than expanding the overall market, many projects focus on capturing existing market share.

This creates a zero-sum mentality where success is measured by taking users from another protocol instead of creating entirely new categories of financial services.

The industry becomes trapped in redistribution instead of expansion.

Why Collaboration Matters

The next phase of DeFi growth may depend less on competition and more on coordination.

Protocols that embrace interoperability, shared liquidity, modular infrastructure, and composability are likely to create stronger network effects than isolated competitors.

Some of the most successful innovations in DeFi emerged through collaboration:

• Shared liquidity layers
• Cross-chain infrastructure
• Yield aggregation
• Protocol integrations
• Modular financial primitives

These developments demonstrate that cooperation can often create more value than direct competition.

The future winners may not be the protocols with the largest incentive budgets, but those that become essential components of a broader financial ecosystem.

The Path Forward

Competition will always remain a critical driver of innovation. The goal is not to eliminate rivalry but to ensure it contributes to ecosystem growth rather than fragmentation.

DeFi needs:

• Better interoperability
• Shared infrastructure
• Sustainable token economics
• User-focused design
• Long-term alignment between protocols

As the industry matures, success will increasingly depend on building on a collaborative network rather than isolated silos.

Conclusion

DeFi’s greatest obstacle may not be regulators, banks, or centralized exchanges. It may be its own tendency toward fragmentation and internal rivalry.

The industry has already proven it can innovate.

The next challenge is proving it can coordinate.

If DeFi can transform competition from a destructive force into a productive one, it has the potential to build a truly global, open, and interconnected financial system. If it cannot, internal competition may continue to slow the very adoption that DeFi seeks to accelerate.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

HIVE Digital Technologies (HIVE) shares jumped 10% in pre-market trading on Thursday after the company announced a $220 million, three-year GPU cloud contract with Bell Canada and AI firm Cohere, as the company continues its transition away from pure-play bitcoin mining.

The deal will see HIVE’s BUZZ High Performance Computing unit deploy 2,304 Nvidia Grace Blackwell GPUs at Bell’s AI Fabric facility in Merritt, British Columbia, forming the dedicated compute layer for Cohere’s enterprise AI models serving Canadian government and corporate clients.

All infrastructure will remain on Canadian soil, supporting Ottawa’s broader push to reduce reliance on foreign-controlled AI technology.

The deployment is expected to go live from late 2026 to early 2027, adding roughly $70 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR). Combined with approximately $35 million of current realised ARR, HIVE’s contracted HPC revenue target now exceeds $100 million, a clear signal that its infrastructure pivot is gaining serious commercial momentum.

US prosecutors propose late 2026 retrial for Tornado Cash co-founder

Federal prosecutors on Monday submitted a proposed schedule for the potential retrial of Tornado Cash co-founder and developer Roman Storm to begin later this year. Storm was found guilty on one of three charges related to illegal money transmitting in 2025, but a jury deadlocked on two other charges, setting the stage for a potential retrial.

US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Jay Clayton Clayton proposed an Oct. 20 final pretrial conference in Storm’s case, signaling a potential trial start date of late October or November 2026. The filing noted that the timeline was subject to the court’s decision on a Rule 29 motion filed by Storm requesting acquittal of the remaining charges.

Source: PACER

Storm’s case continues to draw attention from many in the crypto industry given the implications for developers potentially being held criminally liable for code they write. Should a retrial be scheduled, the Tornado Cash co-founder could face the two remaining charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate sanctions again.

Judge sets 60-day deadline for prosecutors to respond to Celsius CEO’s motion to vacate sentence

Alex Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency lending platform Celsius who said he would be representing himself in court, could receive an answer to his pro se motion to vacate his 12-year sentence before the end of the year.

In a Saturday filing in the US District Court for SDNY, Judge John Koeltl granted a motion giving prosecutors until mid-August to respond to Mashinsky’s request to vacate his sentence. The 60-day deadline followed the former Celsius CEO requesting the judge vacate his May 2025 sentence, which resulted in Mashinsky reporting to federal prison.

Mashinsky, once one of the most recognizable figures in the crypto industry, was indicted in 2023 with his cohort Roni Cohen-Pavon on charges related to fraud and market manipulation. Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022 amid the crypto market downturn that resulted in the collapse of exchanges including FTX and Voyager Digital.

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried loses appeal to overturn 25-year prison sentence

The former CEO was ordered to pay $48 million in forfeiture as part of his criminal case. Cohen-Pavon was sentenced to time served but ordered to pay more than $1 million and a $40,000 fine.

Judge sets December 2026 trial for US soldier in Polymarket insider trading case

Gannon Ken Van Dyke, the US soldier charged after allegedly making more than $400,000 on a Polymarket event contract related to the capture of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, is looking at a December 2026 trial after his April arrest. 

In a June 10 SDNY filing, Judge Margaret Garnett ordered pretrial motions for US prosecutors and defense attorneys in Van Dyke’s case, culminating in jury selection scheduled for Dec. 7. The soldier allegedly used nonpublic information to profit off the removal of Maduro in January, when US forces entered his residence in Caracas and extradited him to the United States to face criminal charges.

The Van Dyke case carries potential implications for Polymarket and other prediction markets platforms facing scrutiny from US lawmakers calling for elected officials to be barred from potentially betting on events with classified or nonpublic information. Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Magazine: Bitcoin, the ‘canary in the coal mine,’ XRP transaction demand falls 91.5%: Market Moves

Key Takeaways

• D-Wave revealed a gate-model quantum simulator featuring dual-rail technology designed for error-aware development
• The platform accommodates up to 21 qubits with both ideal emulation and hardware simulation modes, including Monte Carlo capabilities
• The tool enables developers to build quantum applications, test error-correction protocols, and optimize workflows in real-time
• Two new subscription packages—Starter and Premium—will provide monthly access alongside expert consulting services
• The simulator will be accessible through D-Wave’s Leap cloud infrastructure beginning September 2026

Shares of D-Wave Quantum (QBTS) slipped 4.26% during Wednesday’s session following the company’s unveiling of a new gate-model quantum simulator engineered for error-aware application development.

D-Wave Quantum Inc., QBTS

Despite the technological milestone, which D-Wave positioned as an industry-first simulator leveraging its proprietary dual-rail architecture, investors pushed shares lower throughout the trading day.

The newly announced platform can handle up to 21 qubits while providing developers with transparent, real-time visibility into error states—a significant advancement for teams seeking to design and validate quantum software before accessing physical quantum hardware.

The simulator offers both idealized and hardware-realistic emulation environments, Monte Carlo-based real-time dynamics modeling, and seamless compatibility with D-Wave’s Ocean software development kit. This integrated approach allows programmers to simulate authentic quantum processor behavior without requiring direct access to quantum machines.

With embedded error detection and real-time operational controls, the platform is engineered to accelerate prototyping cycles, enabling developers to experiment with applications and refine error-correction strategies more efficiently.

Subscription Packages Designed for Broader Developer Adoption

Alongside the simulator launch, D-Wave introduced two subscription-based development packages: Starter and Premium tiers. Each bundle combines simulator access with future gate-model hardware availability, professional consulting support, and predictable monthly resource allocations.

Custom pricing is available upon inquiry for both subscription levels. The packages represent D-Wave’s strategy to democratize quantum computing development across diverse user groups, from academic researchers to enterprise innovation teams.

Developers will gain access to the simulator through D-Wave’s established Leap cloud environment when it launches in September 2026. The Leap platform currently supports over 100 organizational users, providing a proven foundation for the new offering.

Market Perspective

The latest Wall Street coverage on QBTS maintains a Buy recommendation with a $35.00 price objective.

D-Wave commands a market valuation of $8.87 billion. Daily trading volume typically averages approximately 33.7 million shares.

From a technical analysis standpoint, the stock carries a Strong Buy signal.

The company’s portfolio spans both quantum annealing and gate-model computing platforms, distinguishing it within the competitive quantum computing landscape. This latest simulator extends D-Wave’s gate-model capabilities into new development territory.

According to D-Wave, the September rollout aims to enable clients to scale quantum workloads while compressing research and development timelines.

The product announcement came on June 18, 2026, with September 2026 confirmed as the cloud availability target, though no additional implementation milestones were disclosed.

Staking lets you earn a yield on certain cryptocurrencies by helping secure the network they run on. Here is how it actually works, where the rewards come from, what the real risks are, and how to start, explained without the hype.

Staking is one of the most common ways to earn a yield on cryptocurrency, and it is also one of the most misunderstood. In simple terms, staking means locking up a proof-of-stake cryptocurrency to help secure its network, and earning rewards in return, a yield often quoted as an annual percentage. 

It is frequently described as the crypto equivalent of earning interest in a savings account, and that analogy captures the appeal, a return on assets you already hold, but it obscures what is actually happening and the real risks involved. To stake wisely, you need to understand where the rewards really come from, which is not interest at all, and what you are giving up and exposing yourself to in exchange.

This guide explains staking from the ground up: what proof of stake is and why it makes staking possible, where staking rewards actually come from, the difference between running a validator and delegating, the main ways to stake and who each suits, the real risks that the savings-account analogy hides, and how to start. 

It assumes no prior knowledge, and it deliberately avoids the hype that surrounds yield in crypto, because the single most important thing about staking is understanding that the advertised percentage is not free money but compensation for a service and for taking on risk. Understanding that turns staking from a number you chase into a decision you can make clearly.

What proof of stake is, and why it enables staking

Staking only exists because of how certain blockchains are secured, so the place to begin is with proof of stake itself.

Every blockchain needs a way to agree on which transactions are valid and in what order, without a central authority in charge, and this is the job of a consensus mechanism. Bitcoin uses proof of work, in which miners compete by spending enormous computing power and electricity to earn the right to add blocks, securing the network through the sheer cost of attacking it. 

Proof of stake takes a different approach: instead of miners spending energy, it uses validators who lock up, or stake, a quantity of the network’s own cryptocurrency as collateral, and the network selects among them to validate transactions and produce blocks, rewarding them for honest work. The security comes not from burning electricity but from economic skin in the game: a validator who tries to cheat risks losing the stake they put up, so honesty is the profitable strategy.

This design is what makes staking possible and what gives staking rewards their purpose. Because the network needs validators to lock up capital to secure it, it rewards them for doing so, and those rewards are what stakers earn. When you stake, you are contributing your cryptocurrency to the pool of collateral that secures the network, either by running a validator yourself or by backing one, and the rewards you receive are your share of what the network pays for that security. 

Proof of stake, in other words, turns the act of holding and committing the cryptocurrency into the mechanism that protects the chain, and staking is how ordinary holders participate in that mechanism and get paid for it. Major networks including Ethereum, Solana, Cardano, and many others run on proof of stake, which is why staking is available across so much of the market.

Where staking rewards actually come from

The savings-account comparison breaks down here, and understanding where the yield really originates is the key to evaluating any staking opportunity clearly.

In a bank, the interest you earn comes from the bank lending your money out at a higher rate; it is a return generated by someone else’s borrowing. Staking rewards are different in origin. They come primarily from two sources: new cryptocurrency that the network issues as a reward for securing it, and transaction fees paid by users of the network, both of which are distributed to validators and the stakers backing them. 

The new-issuance part is the larger source on most networks, and it has an important consequence the savings analogy hides: the rewards are partly funded by the network creating new units of its own currency, which increases the total supply.

So a meaningful portion of a staking yield is not a gain in real terms but a redistribution, the network prints new tokens and gives them to the people who stake, which dilutes those who do not.

This matters for how you read a staking yield. A headline rate of, say, five or seven percent is a nominal figure, and its real value depends on how much new supply the network is issuing to pay it. If a network issues new tokens at a rate close to its staking yield, then stakers are roughly running in place in terms of their share of the total supply, earning tokens while the supply grows underneath them, and the real return depends on whether demand for the token grows faster than the supply. 

This is not a reason to avoid staking, since stakers still come out ahead of non-stakers who get diluted without compensation, but it is a reason to treat the advertised percentage with clear eyes. The yield is real, but it is compensation for providing security and for accepting risk, funded partly by inflation, not interest paid out of someone else’s productive borrowing. Seeing it that way is the difference between understanding staking and chasing a number.

Running a validator versus delegating

There are two fundamentally different ways to participate in staking, and the distinction determines how much you need, how much work is involved, and how most people actually stake.

Running your own validator means operating the software and infrastructure that validates transactions and produces blocks, putting up the network’s required stake yourself, and earning the full rewards directly. 

This is the most hands-on and most rewarding form, but it is demanding: it usually requires a substantial minimum stake, often a large fixed amount set by the network, plus the technical ability to run validator software reliably around the clock, because a validator that goes offline or misbehaves can lose rewards or have part of its stake taken. Running a validator suits technically capable participants with significant holdings who want maximum control and reward and are willing to take on the operational responsibility. For most people, it is more than they need or want.

Delegating is the alternative that makes staking accessible to everyone else. Instead of running a validator, you delegate your cryptocurrency to an existing validator, lending them your stake to increase their weight in the network, and in return you receive a share of the rewards they earn, minus a small commission they keep. 

Delegating requires no technical skill and usually no large minimum, so you can stake whatever amount you hold, and your tokens stay yours, you are backing a validator, not giving them your coins. 

This is how the large majority of staking happens, because it lets ordinary holders earn staking rewards without operating infrastructure, simply by choosing a validator to support. The tradeoff is that you rely on that validator to perform honestly and reliably, since their failures can affect your rewards, which makes choosing a good validator the main decision a delegator makes.

The main ways to stake

Beyond the validator-versus-delegating distinction, staking is offered through several channels, and knowing them helps you pick the approach that fits your situation.

Exchange staking is the simplest entry point. Many centralized exchanges offer staking as a feature: you hold a proof-of-stake asset on the exchange, opt into staking with a click, and the exchange handles the validator operation, passing you rewards minus a fee. This is convenient and requires no technical knowledge, which makes it popular with beginners, but it is custodial, meaning the exchange controls your staked crypto, so you are trusting the platform with both your assets and the staking process.

Native or wallet-based delegation is the self-custody alternative: using a wallet that supports staking, you delegate directly to a validator from a wallet you control, keeping your keys while earning rewards. This preserves ownership and is the approach favored by those who want to stake without surrendering custody, at the cost of a little more involvement in choosing and managing a validator.

Liquid staking is a newer and more advanced approach worth knowing about. When you stake normally, your tokens are typically locked and illiquid for as long as they are staked, and often for an additional unbonding period when you withdraw. Liquid staking protocols address this by giving you a tradeable token representing your staked position, so you earn staking rewards while still holding an asset you can use or sell, restoring liquidity to staked capital.

Liquid staking is powerful and central to decentralized finance, but it adds a layer of smart-contract risk and complexity, which makes it an intermediate-to-advanced tool, not a beginner’s first step. For someone starting out, exchange staking or wallet-based delegation of a major proof-of-stake asset is the straightforward path, with liquid staking and validator operation as things to grow into.

The real risks the savings analogy hides

This is the section the hype skips, and it is the most important one, because staking carries genuine risks that the comparison to a savings account completely obscures.

The first risk is price volatility, and it is the one most likely to matter. Staking rewards are paid in the cryptocurrency you stake, and that asset’s price can fall far more than any yield can compensate for. A seven percent staking reward is worthless protection if the token drops fifty percent, and stakers have repeatedly earned a positive yield while losing money overall because the underlying asset declined.

Staking does not reduce your exposure to the asset’s price; it adds a yield on top of a position whose value can swing dramatically, and the yield is small next to the volatility.

The second risk is lockup and illiquidity: staked tokens are often locked and cannot be sold immediately, and withdrawing frequently involves an unbonding period of days or longer during which your tokens are neither earning nor accessible. If the price crashes while your tokens are locked, you may be unable to sell until the unbonding completes, which can turn a paper loss into a realized one.

The third risk is slashing, the penalty built into proof of stake. Because validators put up collateral to guarantee honest behavior, the network can take, or slash, part of that stake if the validator misbehaves or fails badly, and delegators backing a slashed validator can lose a portion of their delegated stake too. This is usually rare and tied to validator failures rather than ordinary participation, but it is a real risk that makes choosing a reliable validator important.

The fourth risk is custodial and smart-contract exposure: staking through an exchange means trusting that platform’s solvency and security, and staking through a liquid-staking protocol means trusting its smart-contract code, both of which have failed before.

None of these risks means staking is a bad idea, but together they show why the savings-account analogy is misleading: a savings account does not fall fifty percent in value, lock your money for a week, penalize you for a provider’s mistake, or depend on the solvency of an unregulated platform. Staking can be worthwhile, but only with eyes open to what it actually involves.

How to start staking

With the concepts and risks clear, getting started is straightforward, and the right first approach depends on how hands-on you want to be.

For a beginner, the simplest start is to hold a major proof-of-stake cryptocurrency on a reputable exchange that offers staking and opt into it, which requires no technical skill and lets you see how rewards accrue with minimal effort, accepting the custodial tradeoff in exchange for ease. A step up in control is to move the asset to a wallet that supports staking and delegate to a validator yourself, keeping custody of your keys while choosing which validator to back, which preserves ownership and teaches you how delegation works.

In choosing a validator, favor those with a strong track record of reliable uptime, a reasonable commission, and a solid reputation, since a good validator earns steady rewards and avoids the failures that lead to slashing, while a poor one can cost you. Whatever route you take, start with an amount you are comfortable holding for a while, given the lockups, and treat the yield as a bonus on a position you believe in, not as the reason to hold a token you otherwise would not.

A few principles keep staking sensible. Stake assets you would want to hold anyway, because staking does not protect you from the price risk of an asset you do not believe in, and the yield will not save you from a token that falls. Understand the lockup and unbonding terms before you stake, so you are not caught unable to sell when you need to. Read the staking yield as a nominal, partly-inflationary figure, not as guaranteed interest, and judge it against the network’s issuance and your view of the token. 

And match the method to your level: exchange staking or wallet delegation to start, with liquid staking and validator operation as later steps. Followed this way, staking becomes a reasonable way to earn a return on long-term holdings, instead of a yield chase that ends in disappointment when the underlying asset moves against you.

Yield with your eyes open

Staking is a genuine and widely available way to earn a return on proof-of-stake cryptocurrency by locking up your tokens to help secure a network and receiving rewards for doing so. It is accessible to anyone through exchange staking or wallet-based delegation, it does not require running infrastructure unless you want to, and on the right asset held for the right reasons, it can be a sensible way to make long-term holdings productive. 

The mechanics are not complicated once the core idea is clear: proof of stake secures the network through committed capital, and staking is how holders contribute that capital and get paid for it.

What separates wise staking from naive yield-chasing is understanding what the yield really is and what it costs. The advertised percentage is not interest from a savings account; it is compensation for providing security and for accepting real risks, funded partly by the network issuing new tokens, and it sits on top of an asset whose price can fall far more than the yield can offset, whose tokens may be locked when you most want to sell, and whose validators or platforms can fail. 

Stake assets you believe in, understand the lockups and the source of the yield, choose reliable validators or reputable platforms, and treat the reward as a bonus, not a reason. Do that, and staking becomes one of the more reasonable ways to earn in crypto. Chase the highest advertised number without understanding it, and the risks the hype hides will eventually find you. The yield is real, but so is everything underneath it.

Frequently Asked Questions

This guide is educational information, not financial advice. Staking carries real risks, including price volatility, lockups, slashing, and platform failure. Research any asset and platform independently and only stake what you can afford to lock up and potentially lose.