Staking Type Index
DeFi • Yield • Staking Classification
index
Staking Type Index — Native, Delegated, Liquid, and Restaking
This index compares how various crypto assets implement staking. It categorizes each token based on its staking system (traditional, delegated, liquid, or restaking) and shows whether users retain liquidity, use delegation, or interact with advanced yield structures. Understanding these systems helps reveal the user experience, network decentralization, and reward pathways.
Use Case: This overview simplifies how staking works for top-layer protocols and DeFi platforms — from native validators to liquid DeFi integrations.
Key Concepts:
- Validator Delegation — Assigning staking power to a node operator without transferring custody
- Lock Periods — Required time commitment before staked assets can be withdrawn
- Liquid Yield — Earning staking rewards while retaining tradeable token representation
- Dual Staking — Participating in two reward systems simultaneously from a single asset
- Smart Contract Wrappers — Protocol-level containers that automate staking and delegation logic
- Staking — Locking or delegating tokens to support network operations in exchange for rewards
- Staking System Overview — Comprehensive guide to staking mechanics across ecosystems
- Staking Mechanics Toolkit — Practical reference for evaluating staking configurations
- Staking Reward Strategy Index — Comparative framework for reward optimization
- Staking Duration — Length of commitment influencing reward outcomes
- Staking Loyalty Curves — Reward scaling tied to time-based commitment
- Staking Epochs — Time intervals governing reward distribution cycles
- Delegated Proof of Stake — Consensus model where token holders delegate to validators
- Delegated Validator — Node operator receiving staked tokens from delegators
- Liquid Staking Protocol — System issuing tradeable tokens representing staked positions
- $cysFLR — Liquid staking token for Flare via Cyclo
- $SFLR — Liquid staking representation of delegated FLR
- Proof of Stake — Consensus mechanism requiring token commitment to validate
- Proof-of-Stake Utility — Value derived from staking participation beyond rewards
- Validator Node — Infrastructure securing the network through stake-backed validation
- Node Operator — Entity running validation infrastructure on behalf of delegators
- Epoch-Based Rewards — Yield distributed at fixed protocol intervals
- Auto-Compounding — Automatic reinvestment of rewards into the staked position
- Penalty for Unstaking — Costs imposed for early withdrawal from staking commitments
Summary: The Staking Type Index maps the structural differences between native, delegated, liquid, and restaking models — revealing which systems preserve liquidity, which require lockups, and which layer multiple reward streams. Choosing the right staking type is not about highest APY — it is about matching the mechanism to your cycle position, liquidity needs, and sovereignty requirements.
Staking Type Classification Reference
four staking architectures — each defines the trade-off between lockup, liquidity, reward complexity, and user control
Key Insight: Staking type determines more than yield — it determines how quickly you can exit, how much counterparty risk you accept, and whether your capital serves one protocol or many. Native staking offers the most direct relationship with the network but locks capital completely. Delegated staking preserves liquidity while earning rewards — FLR and ADA holders keep tokens in their wallets the entire time. Liquid staking unlocks DeFi composability but introduces depeg risk on the receipt token. Restaking multiplies yield by committing staked assets to additional layers — but each layer adds smart contract risk and reduces your ability to exit quickly. The right staking type depends on your cycle position: delegated and liquid staking fit any phase, native staking fits early accumulation when capital is patient, and restaking should only be entered when the risk premium justifies the complexity.
Staking Type Evaluation Framework
four dimensions for selecting the right staking type based on your capital profile, cycle position, and sovereignty requirements
– Do you need access to this capital within 30 days? → Delegated or Liquid
– Can you commit for 90+ days without exit? → Native or Restaking
– Is this capital part of your emergency reserve? → Do not stake at all
– Late-cycle capital (Phase 4-5) demands maximum liquidity — avoid lockups
– Early-cycle capital (Phase 1-2) can accept longer commitments for higher yield
The staking type you choose must match how soon you might need the capital back
– Native: Risk = your own infrastructure and uptime
– Delegated: Risk = validator performance and honesty
– Liquid: Risk = protocol smart contract + liquid token peg stability
– Restaking: Risk = multiple smart contract layers compounding on each other
– Each layer between you and the base asset adds a failure point
Higher yield from more complex staking types reflects the additional risk you are accepting
– Liquid staking tokens ($sFLR, $stETH) can enter lending, LPs, and vaults
– This composability creates dual yield: staking rewards + DeFi returns
– But composability also means the token is exposed to additional protocol risk
– Evaluate whether the extra yield from composability justifies the extra exposure
– Cyclo $cysFLR enables FLR staking rewards while the liquid token works in DeFi
Composability is powerful when the protocols are proven — dangerous when they are not
– Phase 1-2 (Accumulation): All staking types viable — long commitments justified
– Phase 3 (Expansion): Favor delegated and liquid — stop entering native locks
– Phase 4 (Peak Approach): Liquid only — every position must be exit-ready
– Phase 5 (Distribution): Unwind all staking — convert to stables and metal
– Phase 6 (Preservation): Kinesis $KAG/$KAU yield only — no protocol staking
The best staking type in Phase 1 becomes the worst staking type in Phase 5
Staking Type Audit Checklist
verify that every staking position in your portfolio matches your liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and cycle timing
☐ Every staking position classified: native, delegated, liquid, or restaking
☐ Liquidity status confirmed for each position — locked vs accessible
☐ Unstaking timelines documented: cooldown periods, unlock dates, penalties
☐ Delegation targets reviewed: validator performance, uptime, commission rates
☐ Liquid token peg status checked against underlying asset
If you cannot classify a staking position’s type, you do not understand its risk
☐ Counterparty layers counted for each position — fewer is better
☐ Smart contract audit status verified for all liquid and restaking protocols
☐ Slashing conditions understood for native and restaking positions
☐ Custody confirmed: tokens in self-custody wallet, not on exchange
☐ No single staking type holds more than 40% of total staked capital
Diversify across staking types the same way you diversify across assets
☐ Base staking yield documented for each position
☐ Additional composability yield calculated for liquid tokens in DeFi
☐ Total effective APY computed including all layers and compounding
☐ Yield source identified: emissions vs revenue vs fee-sharing
☐ Layer Cyclo for liquid staking, SparkDEX for dividends, Enosys for lending
Yield from revenue is sustainable — yield from emissions dilutes over time
☐ Every staking position mapped against current cycle phase
☐ No new native or restaking positions entered after Phase 3
☐ Exit timeline documented: which positions unwind first, which last
☐ Preservation base maintained in Kinesis $KAG/$KAU — no lockup, no counterparty
☐ Secure all assets in Ledger or Tangem, access Flare via Bifrost
The staking position that matures after your exit window is not yield — it is a trap
Capital Rotation Map
the optimal staking type shifts with each phase — from maximum commitment during accumulation to zero protocol staking during preservation