Solana spent years constructing a staking tradition by which over two-thirds of the circulating provide is delegated to validators, incomes roughly 6% yearly from inflation and costs. Non-staking Solana ETFs may simply change this dynamic.
Now that reflexive on-chain participation faces a brand new competitor: exchange-traded funds that both can not or won’t stake.
Hong Kong’s ChinaAMC Solana ETF started buying and selling on October 27 with an express mandate to not stake any of its SOL holdings, whereas the US already runs three stake-enabled merchandise: the REX-Osprey’s SSK, the Bitwise BSOL, and the Grayscale GSOL.
These funds direct their custodian to delegate and distribute rewards web of charges. The cut up creates a pure experiment: will giant swimming pools of non-staking ETF capital drain Solana’s validator financial system, or will the yield suggestions loop pull liquidity again on-chain?
The reply relies on which mannequin scales. Non-staking ETFs impose a pure price drag; for instance, ChinaAMC’s ongoing fees quantity to 1.99% in yr one, successfully turning what could be a 6% staking yield right into a unfavourable 2% monitoring distinction versus the spot fee.
Stake-enabled funds, similar to SSK, can ship a constructive carry, passing by way of roughly 4.8% to five.1% after accounting for the fund’s 0.75% expense ratio and custodian-validator infrastructure charges.
However that comfort comes with a threat of centralization. SSK’s prospectus permits the custodian to decide on validators, and the fund additionally holds stakes in non-US ETPs that themselves delegate giant blocks of SOL.
If just a few custodians direct billions of {dollars} in delegations, Solana’s consensus energy and MEV routing focus within the fingers of institutional gatekeepers slightly than in group alternative.
Non-staking Solana ETFs mechanics: fewer stakers, larger APY
Solana’s staking reward mannequin is self-correcting by design. Inflation distributes SOL to all stakers proportionally, so when the staked ratio falls, the identical reward pool is cut up amongst fewer contributors, lifting the per-staker APY.
This creates an incentive for capital to stream again on-chain till a brand new equilibrium is established.
The maths is simple: if circulating provide sits round 592.5 million SOL and the baseline staked ratio is 67%, then $1.5 billion in non-staking ETF AUM (roughly 7.5 million SOL at $200 per token) would shift the staked ratio to about 65.7%.
APY scales inversely, rising from 6.06% to roughly 6.18%, a 12-basis-point bump. Push AUM to $5 billion, and the elevate reaches 41 foundation factors, whereas $10 billion nudges it 88 foundation factors larger.
The implication is that non-staking ETFs don’t intestine on-chain yields; they gently increase them. The bigger the unstaked pool, the extra engaging native staking turns into for anybody who can maintain SOL straight and delegate to a validator.
That’s a really completely different dynamic from “ETFs drain staking,” the preliminary concern when spot merchandise have been first proposed.
As an alternative, non-staking funds act as a subsidy to on-chain contributors, concentrating rewards amongst those that proceed to stake whereas institutional capital sits inert in brokerage accounts.
Stake-enabled ETFs change the calculus. If funds like SSK delegate their holdings, the staked ratio barely modifications, so APYs stay close to the baseline.
However the validator set receiving these delegations is set by custodian relationships and fund sponsor coverage slightly than group signaling or efficiency metrics.
SSK’s design permits it to carry different staked ETPs alongside straight delegated SOL, making a layered construction the place a number of intermediaries, similar to fund sponsors, custodians, and ETP issuers, every take a price slice and determine the place stake flows.
That’s operationally much like how Lido concentrates Ethereum staking by way of a curated set of node operators, however with out on-chain governance or the composability of a liquid staking token.
stETH classes, however not a replay
Ethereum’s stETH precedent is instructive however inexact. Lido grew Ethereum’s staking participation from low single digits to over 30% of provide by providing liquidity and yield in a single wrapper.
At its peak, Lido managed roughly 32% of staked ETH, elevating issues about centralization that prompted governance efforts to cap and diversify the variety of node operators.
The share has drifted all the way down to the mid-20s as opponents like Rocket Pool and EigenLayer have supplied various staking paths.
Nonetheless, the core lesson holds: liquid, yield-bearing wrappers amplify participation and centralize energy except actively managed to distribute energy.
Solana’s ETF panorama doesn’t mirror that trajectory. Many merchandise, particularly in Asia, are explicitly non-staking, which means they will’t focus validator energy whilst AUM scales.
Those who do stake, like SSK or European merchandise from CoinShares and 21Shares, yield lower than native liquid staking tokens.
CoinShares’ Bodily Staked Solana ETP fees no administration charges and delivers a web yield of roughly 3% after deducting validator commissions. On the identical time, 21Shares’ ASOL reinvests rewards however fees a 2.5% annual price, compressing the pass-through.
Native LSTs like JitoSOL or Marinade usually ship 5 to six% with minimal price drag and full on-chain composability.
The yield hole means staked ETFs attraction primarily to accounts that can’t custody crypto straight, similar to retirement plans, registered funding advisors, and controlled establishments, to not customers who can stake natively and seize the total reward stream.
The true threat is delegation focus throughout the subset of funds that stake. If a handful of custodians obtain the majority of institutional delegations, Solana’s validator set tends to skew towards entities with sturdy compliance infrastructure and US authorized footprints.
That’s a special safety profile than a broadly distributed validator set chosen by particular person stakers based mostly on efficiency, decentralization ethos, or MEV-sharing insurance policies.
It’s not inherently worse, however it shifts management of block manufacturing and transaction ordering, and it makes validator economics extra depending on custodian relationships than on group endorsement.
Regulatory glidepath and AUM paths
The SEC’s September adoption of generic itemizing requirements lowered the bar for exchanges to listing spot crypto ETFs past Bitcoin and Ethereum.
That regulatory shift opens the door for mainstream issuers, similar to BlackRock, Constancy, and VanEck, to file Solana merchandise in the event that they see demand.
JPMorgan’s base case tasks $1.5 billion in first-year US inflows for SOL ETFs, a fraction of the $20 billion-plus that flowed into spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024, however nonetheless significant at roughly 1.3% of Solana’s circulating provide.
If most of that capital lands in non-staking funds, native APY ticks up modestly. If stake-enabled merchandise dominate, validator focus accelerates.
Scale past the bottom case turns into attention-grabbing. A $5 billion AUM state of affairs, believable if Solana’s value rallies and a number of low-fee US issuers be part of the market, would signify over 4% of provide.
If held unstaked, that lifts on-chain APY by 41 foundation factors, making native staking extra engaging and sure pulling some liquidity again on-chain.
If staked by way of ETFs, the validator set receiving these delegations turns into a structural function of Solana’s consensus, with custodians directing billions in stake based mostly on operational slightly than financial indicators.
Both path redistributes staking revenue greater than it drains complete staked SOL, however the composition of who stakes and who earns issues for each safety and decentralization.
Europe provides a preview. CoinShares and 21Shares have operated giant staked Solana ETPs for over a yr, demonstrating that institutional staking pass-through is operationally possible at scale.
These merchandise haven’t led to a collapse in Solana’s staking participation; they’ve merely added a brand new class of institutional holders who seize yield by way of regulated wrappers.
The US market will seemingly comply with an identical sample, with the added wrinkle that American custody and compliance necessities might funnel delegations to a narrower set of validators than Europe’s extra fragmented ETP panorama.
What to observe: delegation, coverage, and the yield equilibrium
The following part hinges on three variables.
First, which validators obtain ETF delegations?
SSK’s prospectus permits custodian-directed delegation, and if just a few giant validators, these with deep compliance infrastructure and US authorized presence, seize the majority of institutional stake.
Solana’s validator economics then tilt towards entities that may service ETF custody, slightly than those who prioritize maximizing decentralization or group engagement.
Monitoring public disclosures and on-chain delegation information will reveal whether or not ETF flows diversify or focus.
Second, precise AUM run-rate versus the $1.5 billion base case. If Solana’s value rallies or if US retail and institutional demand surprises, the size query shifts from “does this matter” to “how briskly does this reshape the validator set.”
Monitoring fund creation information, CME Solana futures open curiosity for foundation trades, and AP hedging flows will present early indicators of ETF traction.
Third, governance. Solana’s 2025 SIMD-228 proposal aimed to make inflation dynamic with respect to the staking fee, thereby dampening the APY suggestions loop that presently rewards on-chain stakers when ETFs maintain SOL that’s unstaked.
The proposal didn’t go, however the debate reveals the group is actively contemplating coverage that would mute the “fewer stakers, larger APY” mechanic.
If a successor lands, the economics of ETF versus native staking change, probably tilting the equilibrium towards extra unstaked holdings if coverage smooths out the yield benefit.
The broader narrative is much less about stETH than about custody and defaults. Liquid staking tokens on Ethereum succeeded as a result of they preserved composability and liquidity whereas delivering yield.
Solana’s ETFs cut up the atom: non-staking funds provide liquidity with out yield, and stake-enabled funds provide yield with out composability.
The winner relies on who the marginal purchaser is. Retirement accounts that may’t custody crypto will take the ETF route, whereas on-chain customers will proceed to stake natively to seize full rewards and preserve management over delegation.
The query isn’t whether or not ETFs drain staking, however whether or not the institutional capital they unlock stays passive or begins steering Solana’s validator financial system from the within.