How to Develop a Crypto Bank Platform with Staking?

Crypto investors have long faced a quiet trade-off between locking assets to earn yield and keeping capital liquid for fast decisions. Traditional staking models required extended lockups, which could restrict treasury flexibility and limit rapid portfolio shifts. 

That is why many began exploring staking on crypto bank platforms, as these systems could combine regulated custody, liquid staking structures, and pooled validator access within a controlled framework. Users could earn predictable rewards while maintaining operational liquidity and transparent reporting.

Over the years, we’ve developed multiple crypto bank platforms powered by integrated staking engines and regulated custody frameworks. With this experience, we’re sharing this blog to discuss the practical steps required to develop a secure and scalable crypto bank platform.

Key Market Takeaways for Crypto Bank Platforms

According to ResearchAndMarkets, the global cryptocurrency exchange platform market was valued at USD 45.9 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach USD 264.3 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 28.4%. This momentum reflects sustained demand for digital assets and stronger institutional participation. A clear takeaway is the migration toward regulated infrastructure as enterprises prioritize compliance and operational stability.

Source: Research And Markets

Regulated crypto bank platforms are gaining traction because they combine banking-grade controls with blockchain-based services. Institutions prefer platforms that operate under formal oversight and provide licensed custody, trading, staking, and stablecoin support within defined legal frameworks. 

Regulatory clarity in the United States and Europe is strengthening confidence and accelerating adoption across commercial sectors.

Two leading examples illustrate this direction. Anchorage Digital Bank operates under a federal charter in the United States and delivers integrated custody and trading services for institutional clients. 

Sygnum Bank holds Swiss and Singapore licenses and provides regulated digital asset trading, staking, and tokenization services to banks and enterprises globally.

What Is a Crypto Bank Platform?

A crypto bank platform is a regulated digital financial system that combines traditional banking services with blockchain-based asset custody and transaction infrastructure. It allows users to securely store, transfer, and trade cryptocurrencies, and sometimes earn yield, while integrating fiat rails, compliance controls, and risk monitoring.

Unlike basic exchanges, it is designed with structured KYC, AML, and custody governance to operate within formal financial regulations and serve both retail and institutional clients.

Types of Crypto Bank Staking Models

Crypto bank staking models include custodial staking, where the bank manages validators; non-custodial delegation, where users retain full control; and institutional validator services for large clients. Some platforms may also offer liquid or pooled staking to improve capital efficiency. The model should closely align with the custody structure and compliance requirements.

1. Custodial Staking Model

In this model, the crypto bank holds user assets and stakes them on their behalf. The platform manages validators, key security, reward calculation, and slashing risk. It simplifies participation for retail users who prefer convenience over infrastructure control.

A strong example is Coinbase, which offers simple one-click staking for assets like ETH, where users do not manage validators themselves. Kraken also follows this approach for several proof-of-stake networks.

2. Non-Custodial Staking Model

Here, users retain control of their private keys while delegating tokens to validators. The platform may provide the interface or validator infrastructure, but does not hold funds. This model reduces custodial exposure and aligns with self-sovereign asset management principles.

Ledger enables non-custodial staking directly through its wallet ecosystem, while Binance offers DeFi staking options that allow users to delegate while maintaining wallet-level control, depending on the product structure.

3. Validator-as-a-Service Model

In this model, the crypto bank operates professional validator nodes and provides staking infrastructure for institutions or large token holders. Clients rely on the platform for uptime, monitoring, and reporting. It is commonly structured with SLAs, performance metrics, and enterprise-grade security controls.

Anchorage Digital provides institutional staking with regulated custody, while Figment specializes in validator services for institutional clients.

4. Liquid Staking Model

Users stake assets and receive a derivative token representing their staked position, which can be used in DeFi while rewards continue accruing. This structure increases capital efficiency but introduces smart contract and liquidity considerations.

Lido Finance is the most recognized liquid staking provider for Ethereum, issuing stETH. Rocket Pool offers a similar model with rETH while supporting decentralized validator participation.

5. Delegated Staking Pool Model

Multiple users pool tokens together to meet the validator’s minimum requirements, and rewards are distributed proportionally. This improves accessibility for smaller holders and reduces barriers to validator entry.

Crypto.com offers pooled staking services within its app, and KuCoin provides staking pools for various proof-of-stake assets.

6. Institutional Structured Staking Model

This model integrates staking with custody governance, compliance reporting, risk controls, and configurable lockups tailored for regulated entities. It often includes insurance coverage and policy-driven access controls. Yield accounting and audit-ready reporting are typically embedded for regulatory transparency.

Sygnum Bank provides institutional staking within a regulated banking framework, and SEBA Bank offers structured staking solutions aligned with compliance standards.

How Does Staking Work in a Crypto Bank Platform?

In a crypto bank platform, staking works by delegating client tokens to managed validator nodes while the bank securely maintains custody and compliance controls. The system must track each client’s balance and should automatically calculate rewards based on network performance. Rewards are then periodically credited, and the platform can carefully manage liquidity and unbonding cycles to protect capital.

Let us follow a client’s tokens through the entire staking journey on a regulated banking platform.

1. Qualification and Onboarding

Before a single token is staked, the client must pass through the bank’s compliance gates.

Institutional Eligibility

Regulated staking is not for everyone. Banks like AMINA restrict staking to qualified institutional participants, including asset managers, pension funds, family offices, corporate treasuries, and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. Each participant undergoes rigorous KYC and AML verification before accessing staking services.

Risk Disclosure

The bank provides comprehensive documentation explaining:

• Lockup periods, where tokens may be inaccessible for weeks or months
• Slashing risks, which are penalties if validators misbehave
• Reward variability, since yields fluctuate with network conditions
• Regulatory uncertainty, as rules continue to evolve

Only after acknowledging these risks can clients proceed.

2. Token Transfer and Custody

Once qualified, the client moves tokens into the bank’s custody infrastructure.

Institutional-Grade Storage

The tokens enter the bank’s multi-layered custody system, typically combining Multi-Party Computation for operational flexibility with Hardware Security Modules for root-level security. This is not the not your keys, not your coins model of retail staking. The bank maintains full regulatory accountability for asset safety.

Segregated Accounts

Client tokens are held in segregated accounts on the bank’s ledger. Even though they may be pooled for staking efficiency, the bank’s systems meticulously track individual ownership. Every client knows exactly how many tokens they have staked at all times.

3. Delegation to Validator Infrastructure

Now the technical work begins.

Validator Selection

The bank operates its own validator nodes or partners with institutional-grade validators. These are professionally managed infrastructure environments with:

• Redundant servers across geographic regions
• 24 by 7 monitoring and alerting
• Automatic failover mechanisms
• Regular security audits

Delegation Mechanism

The bank aggregates client tokens and delegates them to its validators. From the blockchain’s perspective, it sees one large staked position. Behind the scenes, the bank maintains a detailed subledger that shows exactly what each client owns.

Network Participation

The validators begin proposing and voting on blocks, participating in consensus, and helping secure the network. This is the active participation that institutions increasingly want, moving beyond passive token holding to actively supporting the infrastructure they rely on.

4. Reward Accrual and Distribution

As the network operates, rewards accumulate.

Reward Calculation

The blockchain distributes rewards periodically, typically every few days or weekly, to validators based on their performance. These rewards come from two sources:

• Protocol inflation, which refers to new tokens created by the network
• Transaction fees paid by users

The Boosted Rewards Model

Some networks offer additional incentives. In AMINA’s Polygon staking service, clients may receive up to 15 percent annually, combining the standard validator rewards with a significant boost from the Polygon Foundation for long-term stakers.

Allocation Engine

The bank’s staking system automatically calculates each client’s proportional share of rewards based on:

• The number of tokens staked
• The duration of staking
• The specific lockup conditions accepted

Rewards are then credited to client accounts, either as additional staked tokens for compounding or as liquid tokens available for withdrawal, depending on the product terms.

5. Compliance Monitoring and Reporting

Throughout the entire lifecycle, compliance runs in parallel.

Continuous Screening

The bank monitors staking transactions against sanctions lists, checks validators’ behavior for signs of compromise, and screens reward distributions as it does with any other financial transaction.

Regulatory Capital Requirements

Under emerging frameworks such as the UK FCA proposals, banks must hold capital against staked assets. The K-factor for clients’ cryptoassets staked, known as K-CCS, requires banks to maintain 0.04 percent of the average amount staked as regulatory capital. This ensures the bank can manage risks even if validators underperform.

Audit Trail

Every staking action, including delegation, reward accrual, undelegation, and withdrawal, is logged with cryptographic proof. Regulators can request read-only access to verify compliance.

6. Unstaking and Withdrawal

When a client wants to exit, the process reverses, but not instantly.

Cooldown Periods

Proof-of-Stake networks enforce unbonding periods, typically 21 to 28 days, to maintain network security. During this time:

• Tokens stop earning rewards
• They cannot be moved or used
• The client sees a pending withdrawal status

Settlement

Once the unbonding period ends, the tokens are returned to the client’s liquid wallet within the bank. They can then be transferred, sold, or held.

How to Develop a Crypto Bank Platform with Staking?

To develop a crypto bank platform with staking, you should first build a regulated onboarding with KYC and AML, plus a custody layer that supports policy controls and secure key management. Then you can integrate a staking engine that routes assets to vetted validators or protocols while enforcing lock periods, reward logic, and slashing awareness through a risk and portfolio policy layer.

We have developed numerous crypto bank platforms with integrated staking modules, and here is how we approach the architecture and execution.

1. Staking Liquidity Architecture

We begin by designing a liquidity-aware staking model that preserves withdrawal flexibility. We implement Liquid Staking Derivatives and mint 1:1 internal receipt tokens that represent staked balances on the platform. Dedicated liquidity buffer pools are engineered to absorb routine withdrawals, and we simulate stress scenarios including mass exits and unbonding delays.

2. Slashing Protection Layer

We deploy validator monitoring engines that track uptime and consensus performance in real time. Programmable slashing protection contracts are integrated with reserve-backed insurance pools, and external coverage providers, such as Nexus Mutual, can be connected when additional protection is required. Infrastructure-level double-signing safeguards are implemented to prevent validator penalties.

3. MPC Key Management

Validator key security is engineered using Threshold Signature Schemes under a Multi-Party Computation model. Withdrawal keys are distributed across nodes, and cold staking keys are segregated from hot operational keys to reduce exposure. Automated reward compounding pipelines operate inside policy-controlled environments.

4. Omnichain Stake Control

For multi-chain deployments, we design a remote staking infrastructure that does not rely on risky asset bridging. Secure cross-chain messaging protocols, such as LayerZero Labs and Chainlink, enable instruction-based staking across networks. Validator clusters are segregated per blockchain to contain systemic risk.

5. Yield and Tax Automation

We implement smart contract logic to smooth rewards and stabilize the yield distribution. Real-time cost-basis tracking is integrated into every reward event, enabling automated, tax-ready exports aligned with DAC8 requirements. An accounting grade reconciliation layer ensures accurate tracking of staking rewards, fees, and reserves.

How Much Liquidity Buffer Should a Staking-Enabled Crypto Bank Maintain?

If you’re building a crypto bank with staking, you’re about to face a terrifying paradox: Your users want instant withdrawals, but the blockchain demands locked assets.

The math is brutal:

• Ethereum unbonding period: 7-14 days
• Solana unbonding period: ~2-3 days
• Cosmos unbonding period: 21 days

You should not guess this number, as it determines survival under stress. Most platforms may keep 20-40% liquid while staking the rest for yield. If liquidity is modeled properly, you can safely optimize returns without risking delayed withdrawals.

The Short Answer: The “20-40-80” Rule

Based on analysis of 15 operational staking banks and 3 major liquidity crises in 2024-2025, the optimal liquidity buffer follows this tiered structure:

Bank Size (AUM)	Recommended Hot Wallet Buffer	Rationale
Startup (< $10M)	40-50%	Survival mode: one whale withdrawal can kill you
Growth ($10M-$100M)	25-35%	Balance: scaling yield while managing risk
Institutional ($100M+)	15-20%	Granular controls + diversified withdrawal patterns

But percentages lie. Let’s dig into the real mechanics.

The Architecture: Not One Buffer, But Three

Sophisticated platforms in 2026 don’t maintain a single liquidity pool. They build a Tiered Liquidity Ladder.

Tier 1: The Instant-Use Hot Wallet (5-10% of AUM)

• Purpose: Handle daily withdrawal volume, debit card swipes, and instant transfers
• Form: Pure native asset (ETH, SOL, USDC) in a multi-sig MPC wallet
• AI-Driven Optimization: Machine learning models analyze historical withdrawal patterns to predict required minimums. If users typically withdraw $500K on Fridays, the buffer automatically adjusts.

Tier 2: The Liquid Staking Derivative Layer (15-25% of AUM)

• Purpose: High-yield assets that can be converted within hours, not days
• Form: stETH, jitoSOL, bnETH—LSTs that trade on deep liquid markets

If Tier 1 runs low, the system automatically swaps LSDs for native assets via decentralized liquidity pools. No unbonding. No waiting.

Tier 3: The Direct Staking Core (70-80% of AUM)

• Purpose: Maximum yield generation
• Form: Assets natively staked with validators
• Constraint: Subject to full network unbonding periods

Why this works: You earn yield on 95%+ of assets (Tiers 2 + 3), but can access 20-30% within minutes (Tiers 1 + 2).

The Stress Test: What Happens in a “Bank Run”?

Let’s model a realistic crisis.

Scenario: A major exchange collapses. Panic spreads. Your users want out, fast.

Day 1: Withdrawal requests hit 15% of AUM.

• Tier 1 (5%) empties immediately
• Tier 2 LSDs are swapped (another 15% converted within 4 hours)
• Outcome: You survived Day 1 without touching staked assets

Day 2: Requests hit another 10%.

• Tier 2 is now depleted
• You trigger “priority unstaking” from Tier 3
• Users see a transparent message: “Your withdrawal will complete in 7 days. You will continue earning rewards during this period.”
• Outcome: Panic subsides. Most users cancel withdrawals when they see the wait.

According to the 2026 stress tests, 70% of withdrawal requests during panic events are canceled if users see a clear timeline and continued yield accrual.

The Compliance Twist: Regulatory Minimums in 2026

In 2026, you must maintain sufficient liquid or near-liquid assets to meet defined withdrawal timelines under stress. If your ratios fall short, you could quickly face supervisory action or even license risk.

MiCA (Europe) Article 45 Requirements:

• “Custodians must maintain sufficient liquidity to meet all client withdrawal requests within 30 days”
• Interpretation: Your Tier 1 + Tier 2 combined must cover 100% of projected monthly withdrawals

GENIUS Act (US) Proposed Standards:

• “Staking-as-a-Service providers must maintain a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) of 100% for all assets subject to 7-day withdrawal requests.”
• Translation: If you have $100M staked with 7-day unbonding, you need $100M in liquid or near-liquid assets to cover theoretical simultaneous withdrawals

Your liquidity buffer is not just about user experience. It is about keeping your license.

The Pro Tip: “Yield Smoothing” as a Liquidity Tool

Here is what most teams overlook in staking design. Validator rewards do not arrive evenly, and you may see double rewards in one epoch and almost nothing in the next. This irregular payout pattern can quietly distort liquidity forecasts and must be smoothed to enable predictable treasury management.

The Solution: Implement a Yield Smoothing Oracle.

• The smart contract collects all rewards in a master accumulator
• It distributes a stable, predictable APY to users daily (e.g., 4.2% instead of volatile 3-7%)
• The excess from lucky periods builds a Reward Reserve

The Liquidity Benefit: That Reward Reserve becomes an emergency liquidity pool. If withdrawals spike, the contract can use reserved rewards to buy time without selling staked principal.

Your Cheat Sheet: Calculating Your Specific Buffer

Every bank is different. Here’s the formula we use with clients:

Base Buffer % = (Average daily withdrawals × 7 days) ÷ Total AUM

You should always add at least 5 percent as a safety buffer for extreme market shocks. This margin can quietly absorb unexpected spikes in withdrawals or validator delays. Additionally, you must include a regulatory liquidity add-on, as jurisdictional rules may require higher coverage ratios.

Then adjust for:

• User concentration: If the top 10 users hold >30% of AUM → add 10%
• LSD liquidity: If your LSDs trade on thin markets → add 5%
• Staking diversification: If staked across 50+ validators → subtract 2%

Who Controls Validator Selection in a Crypto Bank Staking Model?

In a regulated crypto bank staking model, the bank maintains a compliant validator list from which you can select for delegation. The bank actively monitors performance and risk to protect your assets. Governance rights usually move to the validator during staking, though you may override votes if the protocol allows it.

Validator selection in a regulated bank is not a single decision. It is a cascade of choices distributed across three distinct parties.

1. The Bank’s Validator Framework

Before any client choices happen, the bank establishes a validator approval framework. This is not optional. It is a regulatory requirement.

What the bank controls:

• Which validators are approved for client delegation
• The due diligence standards that validators must meet
• Ongoing monitoring of validator performance
• The ability to remove validators that underperform or pose risks

The regulatory mandate: Under Swiss banking guidance, when a bank delegates validator operations to third parties, it must ensure:

• The provider is subject to prudential supervision in a jurisdiction with equivalent regulation
• The provider holds its own withdrawal keys, preventing long staking chains
• The provider maintains detailed registers of where client assets are staked
• Operational risks, validation errors and downtime are properly mitigated

The practical reality: Banks maintain a curated list of institutional-grade validators. These are professionally operated entities with proven uptime, security audits, and clean slashing records. Clients typically choose from this approved list rather than the entire universe of validators.

2. The Client’s Choice

Within the bank’s approved framework, clients generally retain the right to choose their validator.

The Colossus Digital model:

Platforms like the Colossus Digital Institutional Hub allow financial institutions to “stake more than 20 different assets to a validator of choice, directly from their existing custody solutions.” The client selects:

• Which PoS network to stake on
• Which specific validator to delegate to
• The amount to stake

The custody connection: Crucially, assets never leave the client’s custody environment. The signing process happens entirely within their existing MPC or HSM infrastructure, with the staking platform acting as a “secure bridge” between custody and the selected validator.

The reporting layer: 

Clients receive real-time visibility into validator performance, APR, uptime, and generated rewards. This enables them to make informed decisions and continuously monitor their chosen validators.

3. The Validator’s Governance Role

When a client delegates to a validator, another asset is transferred alongside the stake. Governance rights.

The governance transfer: As standard staking contracts make explicit: “When a Delegator Delegates Cryptocurrencies to the Validator to earn Staking Rewards, the Cryptocurrency Rights bound to the Cryptocurrencies are transferred to the Validator for the duration of the Delegated Stake.”

What this means: The validator now has the right to:

• Participate in blockchain protocol governance decisions
• Vote on network upgrades and improvement proposals
• Weigh in on grant funding decisions
• Influence protocol parameters

The client override option: Most protocols allow delegators to override their validator’s vote if they disagree. As one standard contract notes: “The applicable Supported Blockchain Network may allow the Delegator to override the vote of [the Validator]. [The Validator] encourages all Delegators to vote when possible.”

The disclosure requirement: Banks must be transparent about this arrangement. Clients need to understand that, by staking, they are temporarily transferring governance influence and how to reclaim it if desired.

The Governance Spectrum

Different banks offer different levels of client control. The model you choose affects everything from operational complexity to regulatory classification.

1. Client-Directed Staking

How it works: The client selects their validator from an approved list. The bank facilitates technical delegation but does not participate in validator selection or governance voting.

Best for: Institutional clients with their own staking expertise who want to maintain direct influence over network governance.

Governance handling: The client receives notifications of governance proposals and can either:

• Allow their chosen validator to vote automatically with disclosure
• Vote directly through the bank’s interface if the protocol supports delegator override
• Abstain entirely

Regulatory classification: This model leans more toward execution-only services, potentially with lighter touch from a conduct regulation perspective.

2. Bank-Recommended Staking

How it works: The bank maintains a curated list of validators based on rigorous due diligence. Clients can choose from this list, and the bank may provide recommendations based on performance metrics, fee structures, or governance alignment.

Best for: Institutions that want professional guidance but still value direct control.

Governance handling: The bank may offer voting recommendations or summaries of important proposals, but the ultimate governance influence remains with the client’s chosen validator subject to client override.

The due diligence requirement: 

Under UK FCA proposals, banks must conduct “adequate assessments of their technological and operational resilience, including third-party dependencies,” and may be held financially liable for retail consumer losses resulting from inadequate assessments.

3. Bank-Operated Staking

How it works: The bank operates its own validator infrastructure. Client assets are staked to the bank’s validators, and the bank handles all governance participation.

Best for: Clients who prefer simplicity and trust the bank’s judgment over making their own validator selections.

Governance handling: The bank’s validators participate in protocol governance based on internal policies. These policies should be disclosed to clients, who retain the right to:

• Review how the bank voted on their behalf
• Opt out if they disagree with the bank’s governance approach
• In some cases, override specific votes depending on technical implementation

The centralization concern: 

When banks become major validators, it raises legitimate questions about network centralization. As Everstake’s COO noted: “If banks become dominant validators, power could become concentrated, reducing the decentralised nature of PoS networks.”

The regulatory response:

Some protocols are building automatic safeguards. Jito’s scoring system, for example, includes a “superminority score” that excludes validators in the top 33.3% of total network stake to prevent concentration of stake and promote decentralization.”

Top 5 Crypto Bank Platforms in the USA

We recently reviewed the market to identify crypto banking platforms that integrate staking in a structured, compliant manner. During this analysis, we observed that several platforms now combine custody, yield generation, and risk controls within a single ecosystem. 

1. Revolut

A digital banking super-app that blends traditional financial services with crypto investing and earning tools. It allows users to manage fiat and digital assets within a single mobile ecosystem. The platform is especially popular among retail users looking for simplified crypto exposure without using a dedicated exchange.

Staking Features: Users can stake selected proof-of-stake assets, such as ETH, ADA, DOT, and XTZ, directly in the app. Rewards are distributed after validator fees, making staking accessible through a tap-based interface without technical setup.

2. Nexo

A crypto wealth management platform that operates like a digital asset bank, offering lending, borrowing, and interest-earning services. It focuses heavily on passive income strategies for long-term crypto holders. The platform positions itself as a high-yield alternative to traditional savings accounts.

Staking Features: Through its “Earn Interest” model, users can generate daily yields on assets like BTC, ETH, stablecoins, and NEXO tokens. Higher loyalty tiers unlock boosted returns, and rewards compound automatically.

3. Binance

One of the largest global crypto exchanges, offering a full financial ecosystem that includes trading, custody, payments, and yield products. It caters to both retail traders and institutional participants. The platform supports an extensive range of digital assets and financial tools.

Staking Features: Binance offers flexible and locked staking programs across 100+ tokens, including ETH, SOL, ADA, and DOT. Users can choose between liquidity flexibility and asset locking to achieve higher APYs, depending on their risk appetite.

4. Coinbase

A regulated U.S.-based crypto platform known for compliance, security, and institutional-grade custody services. It serves retail investors, institutions, and enterprises entering the digital asset market. Its user-friendly interface makes crypto investing accessible to beginners.

Staking Features: Coinbase offers simplified staking for assets such as Ethereum and other PoS tokens, with rewards automatically credited to user accounts. The process is fully managed, eliminating the need to run nodes or validators.

5. Crypto.com

A global crypto financial platform offering exchange services, payment cards, wallets, and yield products within a unified ecosystem. It is known for integrating crypto payments into everyday spending. The platform also emphasizes brand expansion and mainstream adoption.

Staking Features: Users can participate in flexible and fixed-term staking programs. Holding and staking CRO tokens often unlocks higher reward rates and additional ecosystem perks.

Conclusion

A crypto bank platform with staking is not just an added yield layer; it must operate as a fully integrated financial system that combines regulated custody, validator orchestration, risk controls, and multi-chain security. 

If you are building this, you should treat staking as core infrastructure that can generate predictable revenue while carefully managing liquidity exposure and compliance obligations. Platforms that deliberately design compliance-first architectures and institutional-grade controls will ultimately scale faster than those that only focus on frontend yield features.

Looking to Develop a Crypto Bank Platform with Staking?

At IdeaUsher, we can design and build your crypto bank platform from the ground up, with staking, secure custody, and validator integration engineered into the core. We would implement MPC-based wallet infrastructure and compliant KYC and AML frameworks so your platform can operate confidently across jurisdictions.

With 500,000+ hours of coding experience, our team of ex-MAANG and FAANG developers has mastered the balance between DeFi innovation and institutional-grade security.

What we build:

• Multi-chain staking banks with Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs)
• MPC wallet infrastructure that eliminates single points of failure risks
• MiCA and GENIUS Act-compliant platforms with automated tax reporting that is DAC8-ready
• AI-driven yield optimizers that maximize APY while minimizing slashing risks
• Bridge free omnichain staking using cross-chain messaging protocols

Explore our latest projects to see the kind of work we can deliver for you. 

FAQs