Blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana (among others) are secured by Proof-of-Stake (PoS). In PoS, validator nodes help reach consensus by proposing blocks, validating transactions, and voting. On Ethereum, each validator is backed by a 32 ETH stake. That stake is subject to activation and exit queues, so entering or withdrawing can take time (see validator queues).

‍

Native Staking

Running validators requires some technical know-how. You can do it yourself or delegate to an operator. Companies, like Blockdaemon, exist to help with this where the two primary models offered are custodial and non-custodial.

‍

Non-Custodial

An operator runs validators for you while you retain control of your keys. You’re trusting the operator to run honestly and minimize slashing. Slashing occurs when a validator misbehaves (e.g., violates protocol rules), causing a loss of some staked funds. If the operator fails or is compromised, you still hold your keys and can recover funds subject to protocol rules.

‍

Custodial

You deposit assets (or fiat equivalent) and the provider handles everything, including keys used for staking. This is simpler for end users but requires full trust in the custodian’s security and operations. Key compromise or operational failure can result in loss of funds.

‍

In short: running your own validator or using a non-custodial provider gives you stronger control and a predictable security model compared to the custodial model, with less third-party reliance. The trade-offs are operational effort, fees, withdrawal delays, and key management responsibilities.

‍

Vault Staking

Vault staking takes a different approach. Providers pools user deposits, often via smart contracts or off-chain programs, and manages them on your behalf. This creates flexibility: the provider can allocate across validators or protocols, automate strategies, rebalance across chains, and leverage scale, but also for the user, as they no longer need 32 ETH on their own. Additionally, providers can deploy funds into other venues (e.g., lending) rather than only running validators to maximize profit.

‍

Liquid Staking

Some vaults issue Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) that represent your staked position. You can use or trade the LST instead of waiting for withdrawals, improving liquidity. LSTs can however deviate from the underlying currency in terms of value, causing various issues (see stETH depeg analysis by Nansen).

‍

Vaults improve convenience and potential yield, but they add smart-contract and platform risk on top of validator/custody risk. A buggy contract, oracle exploit, or governance attack can cause loss or economic instability. Even large, audited protocols acknowledge material smart-contract and technical risk. Users also have limited control once funds are deposited.

‍

Conclusion

Staking lets users secure rewards, but the paths - native non-custodial, custodial, or vault/pooled - present different tradeoffs between convenience and risk.

‍

Native non-custodial staking offers maximum control and transparency: you hold the keys and rely only on the protocol. This minimizes third-party risk but demands solid key management and, potentially, technical expertise to avoid downtime or slashing (which can be handled by a provider).

‍

Native custodial staking removes operational overhead but introduces a centralized point of failure: the provider’s custody. Hacks, insider threats, operational errors, key mismanagement or regulatory issues can jeopardize funds.

‍

Vault or pooled staking adds liquidity and convenience, often via liquid-staking tokens or automated reward strategies, but layers on additional security challenges (in addition to existing challenges with custodial staking). Smart-contract bugs, compromised admin keys or APIs, and governance attacks all create vectors for loss. 

‍

Convenience rises as you move from non-custodial to custodial to vault staking, while the attack surface and trust requirements grow in parallel. Users must weigh how much operational simplicity and liquidity are worth compared with the possibility of smart-contract exploits, oracle manipulation, or single-key failures. A recent high-profile incident underscores how a single leaked API key or privileged credential can nullify the protections of the underlying blockchain.

‍

No staking method is risk-free. For maximum security, experienced users favor non-custodial staking with strict key management, while those seeking simplicity or liquidity should scrutinize custodial or vault providers carefully.

‍