Grayscale selects Figment to power staking in Ethereum and Solana funds

Note: The ‍provided web search results do not relate to the topic. Proceeding based on the details you supplied.

Grayscale has selected blockchain infrastructure⁢ provider Figment to power⁣ staking across it’s Ethereum‍ and Solana funds, as the asset ‍manager rolls out what it calls the first U.S. ​staking capability for regulated ‌digital-asset⁤ ETPs.⁤ The partnership is designed ‌to boost yield potential for⁣ investors while preserving institutional-grade custody and compliance, marking a step toward integrating on-chain rewards into mainstream,⁢ exchange-traded crypto products.

Grayscale ⁣selects Figment to​ power staking in Ethereum ​and ​Solana funds

Grayscale’s move to work with Figment underscores a broader institutional⁣ shift toward extracting on-chain yield​ from proof-of-stake networks while​ maintaining ‌compliance and operational rigor. In​ practice,⁤ staking in ⁤ Ethereum and Solana channels native block rewards and fee revenue ⁢to validators who provide security and liveness; enterprise⁣ operators like ​Figment focus ‍on‌ high​ validator uptime, robust monitoring, and slashing ⁢safeguards to minimize downtime‌ and operational loss. For Ethereum, the post-Shapella surroundings enables full ⁣and partial withdrawals, but an exit queue can lengthen during periods of ⁤elevated churn; on Solana,‍ stake activation​ and deactivation​ follow network epochs that settle​ roughly every few days, shaping liquidity timing. From⁤ a portfolio construction lens, this introduces a total-return profile where native token⁤ rewards complement price performance-an appealing attribute as Bitcoin market cycles, ETF flows, and macro rates influence crypto risk ‍appetite. Yet the trade-offs are real: validator ⁢ centralization risks, MEV policy choices, and jurisdictional rules on staking-as-a-service can impact both realized yield⁢ and compliance outcomes.

For investors, the operational nuances ⁣matter as much as ⁤headline APYs. Staking rewards ​are variable‌ and⁢ path-dependent-sensitive to network​ participation, fee markets, and validator behavior-so due diligence shoudl extend beyond expected percentages to⁣ how yield‌ is generated and ⁣safeguarded. Moreover,⁣ in multi-asset portfolios that include ‌ BTC, ⁣staking can ⁢diversify ⁣return drivers; though, during phases of rising BTC​ dominance,⁣ ETH/SOL ⁤may underperform on ⁤price even as staking continues to ⁢accrue. To navigate this, ‍consider the following checks that ⁣scale from newcomer needs to ‌expert-level controls:

• Counterparty and custody: Confirm ‍whether staking‍ is⁣ non-custodial or via qualified custody, how keys are managed (e.g., MPC), and what happens in⁣ the event ⁤of validator downtime.
• Slashing and insurance: Review ⁣double-signing protections, slashing⁢ track ⁣record, and whether any insurance or coverage exists for adverse events.
• MEV policy: Understand if and how MEV is captured and distributed, and whether policies prioritize decentralization, censorship resistance, and⁤ client⁤ diversity.
• Liquidity timing: Map Ethereum withdrawal queues ⁣ (which can extend in stress) and Solana epoch schedules‌ to your liquidity needs; plan accordingly for reallocation or risk-off moves.
• Tax ⁤and accounting:⁢ Determine recognition of staking rewards (income vs. capital), NAV treatment in funds, and reporting cadence.
• On-chain concentration:⁤ Monitor validator and stake concentration to avoid centralization risk;‌ diversify across operators ⁢and geographies ⁣where possible.

As institutional staking adoption expands, the⁣ possibility lies in disciplined execution: pairing Bitcoin’s ‍ proof-of-work scarcity with yield-bearing PoS exposure, while continuously stress-testing operational, liquidity, and regulatory assumptions against evolving ⁤market conditions.

Regulated⁢ yield focus with custody controls slashing insurance and MEV​ neutrality

Regulated yield in crypto increasingly means pairing on-chain income with institutional-grade custody controls, auditability, ‌and transparent ‍risk​ transfer. ⁢On proof‑of‑stake networks, gross staking rates⁣ typically range from ~3-5% APR for Ethereum and ~5-8%⁣ APY for Solana, before validator commissions and‍ provider fees; ​net ⁢returns vary with client ⁣configuration, downtime, and fee policies. The institutionalization of this model‍ accelerated as major‌ issuers moved to‍ enterprise operators-evidenced by reports that Grayscale ‍selected Figment to ‍power staking in certain Ethereum⁤ and Solana funds-signaling ‌demand for regulated yield pipelines that meet fund governance and SOC 2 Type II requirements. For investors, the focus⁣ is less on headline APR and more on operational safeguards that protect principal ​and prove entitlement to rewards, including:

• Custody controls: segregated⁢ cold storage or MPC ⁣with policy engines, withdrawal allowlists, time‑locks, and dual-approval workflows⁣ for validator ⁢key management.
• Attestations: ‍ autonomous audits, ‌proof‑of‑reserves/solvency attestations, and real‑time monitoring of validator performance and reward attribution.
• Slashing insurance: explicit coverage for ⁤double‑signing and correlated faults; verify triggers, exclusions, and per‑asset⁤ sub‑limits. Isolated slashing events have historically been small (often low single‑digit percent of stake), but correlation risk can amplify losses.
• Fee transparency: ‍ clear breakdown of provider commissions (commonly‌ 5-15%), custody fees, and any performance or exit fees that affect ‍net yield.

Alongside yield, MEV ​neutrality has become a ⁤core policy ‍choice ‌for validators ​and custodial​ staking platforms. on Ethereum,MEV‑Boost ⁤and ⁢ PBS ‌ (Proposer‑Builder Separation) can improve revenues but introduce ethical and regulatory ⁤trade‑offs: relays and builders may shape ‌order flow,and⁤ strategies like sandwiching can extract ⁢value ​from ⁢users. Mature providers are formalizing ⁤neutral practices-such as fair ordering and anti‑sandwich protections-while maintaining compliance.On bitcoin, while MEV is more limited,‌ miners and pools still face ​choices ⁤around‌ fee‑maximizing mempool policies versus transaction neutrality, especially during congestion. For ⁢both newcomers and⁣ advanced operators, practical steps include:

• Relay and client diversification: use multiple non‑censoring relays where permitted and maintain diverse client ​stacks‍ (e.g., Lighthouse, Prysm, ⁤Teku, Nimbus) to reduce correlated failure risk.
• Documented ⁢MEV ‍policies: publish inclusion/exclusion criteria, opt‑outs for toxic MEV, and⁤ metrics on orderflow handling; prefer providers that report MEV uplift and user impact separately.
• Key governance: ‌ enforce withdrawal address controls, operator rotation procedures, and jurisdictional separation of key shards to align with​ fund mandates.
• Risk budgeting: size positions so that potential slashing + MEV variance stays within portfolio drawdown limits; stress‑test for relay outages and chain reorgs.

For Bitcoin holders seeking ​yield without staking,⁤ consider regulated alternatives-such as covered‑call strategies in compliant funds or short‑duration T‑bill‑backed structures-while​ weighing counterparty⁤ and rehypothecation‍ risks. Across chains, the throughline is the ⁣same: prioritize controls, coverage, and neutrality ‍over ​raw percentage points, and demand transparent, auditable processes that convert on‑chain mechanics into institution‑grade,‍ regulator‑ready ​income streams.

Fee⁢ design and validator performance ⁤expected to shape net returns for ETP holders

For crypto exchange-traded products, the‍ gap⁤ between gross and net ⁤performance is increasingly determined‌ by fee design and operational frictions across the⁢ underlying blockchain.on the fee side, investors should look beyond the headline expense ratio to ⁣understand all-in costs, including custody, creation/redemption, and any reward-sharing or “staking commission” policies in non‑bitcoin exposures. In Bitcoin⁣ ETPs, ‍where there is ⁣no staking yield, fee ⁤drag is especially ⁢salient: U.S. spot Bitcoin funds ‍currently range from roughly 0.19% to 1.50% in annual sponsor fees, a spread that can exceed typical yearly tracking differences. Structure also matters. Products that support in-kind creation/redemption tend to reduce trading slippage ​and taxes compared with cash creates, ⁣improving tracking difference during volatile orderbooks or when on-chain fees spike-conditions seen around⁣ halving and inscription-driven congestion.Outside⁤ the U.S., several Ethereum and Solana ETPs share⁢ staking rewards ⁤with holders; here, the fee stack includes both the ‌fund’s management⁢ fee and any staking fee split retained by the manager ‌or validator. Small differences compound: for​ exmaple, a 0.75%⁢ higher⁢ sponsor fee on a Bitcoin ETP erodes return by 75 bps annually, while in a staking​ ETP‍ a 15-25% take-rate on ⁢rewards ​can‍ reduce investor⁣ yield by a ​similar order of ​magnitude.

• Scrutinize the creation/redemption mechanism (in-kind vs cash) and ‍the fund’s historical tracking difference to spot hidden costs.
• For staking ETPs, check the stated reward-sharing policy, the validator fee, and whether MEV ⁢revenue is passed through to holders.
• Compare‌ custody, insurance, and rehypothecation policies; some mandates prohibit lending or restaking, limiting risk ⁤but also foregone yield.
• Note jurisdictional constraints: in the U.S., ETFs generally ⁤ do not stake, while several⁢ European⁣ ETPs do-impacting net yield comparability.

Validator performance introduces another layer of dispersion in Ethereum and⁢ Solana‌ ETPs⁢ that incorporate staking. Differences in uptime, inclusion/proposal effectiveness, and MEV ⁣capture can⁣ move gross rewards by tens of basis points. Recent industry moves-such as asset managers selecting specialist operators⁤ like Figment to run validators for ethereum ⁢and Solana products-underscore how operator choice ⁣and MEV policy shape outcomes; when MEV (e.g.,via PBS on Ethereum or Jito tips on Solana) is shared⁣ with the fund,investor APR can rise by 30-100 bps versus baseline execution-only setups. Consider illustrative math: if Ethereum’s gross staking⁤ APR is ~3.5-4.0%,a validator ⁢with 99% effectiveness ‌and MEV pass-through ⁢of ~0.3% might deliver‍ ~3.8-4.3% before fees; after ‌a 10-20% validator/manager commission ‍and⁤ a 0.35-0.95% fund fee, investor net could land around 2.6-3.6%. On Solana, where gross yields frequently enough print‍ in the 6-8% ⁣range depending on inflation and network conditions, downtime or ⁤higher validator commissions⁣ can shave 50-100 bps, while Jito tip sharing can⁣ partially offset that.Risks remain two-sided: slashing events,client concentration among a few validators,or policy shifts (for example,changes to MEV distribution) can all ⁢affect realized returns; conversely,improved client ‌software and​ fee markets ⁢may lift validator effectiveness over time. actionably, newcomers ‍should ⁣favor funds with transparent validator rosters, ‌clear MEV/reward-sharing disclosures, and conservative risk controls, while experienced holders can optimize by comparing per-unit net ‍yield after all fees, monitoring validator effectiveness dashboards, and reassessing providers⁢ as‌ network ‍conditions and⁢ regulations evolve.

Liquidity management plan ⁤for unbonding periods to protect creations and redemptions

unbonding windows ⁤ on proof-of-stake networks introduce a timing mismatch between on-chain liquidity and‍ fund creation/redemption cycles, ⁤requiring‌ a disciplined treasury playbook that‌ spans Bitcoin and multi-chain exposure.​ While Bitcoin positions settle based on⁣ block confirmations and ⁣network fees (with typical finality achieved after ~6⁢ blocks), staked assets on‌ networks such as Solana (epoch-based,⁤ ~2-3 days) and ecosystems like Cosmos (~21 days) and Polkadot (~28 days) can be subject to‌ unbonding delays and ⁢exit queues. ⁢ Ethereum withdrawals are governed ​by⁤ a variable churn and queue‌ system that may clear ‌in ⁤hours to days during normal⁢ conditions, but can elongate under stress. ‍in this⁤ context, recent⁢ institutional ⁣moves-such as reports that Grayscale selected Figment to power staking ​in Ethereum and Solana funds-highlight a market shift toward professional validator ‌operations, queue analytics, and SLA-driven ⁣ withdrawal⁤ management.to protect daily liquidity, funds can target a liquidity coverage ratio that ​exceeds the 95th-percentile net outflow​ day (e.g., 1.1x-1.5x), with buffers calibrated to regime shifts in flows and volatility. Practical structure ⁤often includes tiers that can be mobilized within T+0 ⁢to T+3:

• tier 1: cash and cash equivalents (USD, ‌ USDC) sized at 5-15% of staked AUM to absorb routine creations/redemptions;
• Tier ⁢2: promptly sellable ⁢spot BTC/ETH and top-liquidity pairs across reputable OTC venues and exchanges, sized to the 90th-95th percentile of daily flows;
• Tier 3: liquid staking⁤ tokens (LSTs ⁤ such as stETH or mSOL) with conservative haircuts (e.g., 1-5%) for ​potential de-peg and ‌basis risk,​ explicitly governed by hard limits.

Operationally, the plan ⁣combines laddered unstakes-staggered across epochs/validators-to smooth exit-queue exposure, with ‍ derivatives overlays to hedge market beta while capital is locked. For example,funds can pre-hedge expected ​creations with CME⁢ Bitcoin and Ether futures or high-liquidity perpetuals,and neutralize exposure as on-chain ⁢settlements ​clear; similarly,pending redemptions during unbonding⁣ can be delta-hedged ⁣to keep ⁤NAV tracking ⁣tight. To⁣ reduce NAV dilution,managers‍ may deploy swing pricing (e.g., 25-100 bps depending on‌ depth and spreads)⁣ or in-kind mechanisms, and publish ⁤ AP windows (T+0 in-kind,⁢ T+1 cash) aligned⁣ with network constraints. Transparent guardrails are essential in stress:

• Stress tests against 30-50% weekly outflows, exit-queue elongation on Ethereum, Solana epoch rollovers, and historical LST discounts (e.g., mid-single-digit percent⁢ during 2022 liquidity stress);
• Venue risk diversification across regulated futures, top-tier OTC desks, and multiple custodians;⁢ daily limits on venue ‌concentration and basis exposure;
• Governance and disclosure ​ of validator​ policies​ (MEV, slashing‌ coverage), sanctions‌ screening,​ and audit trails-notably​ relevant as ​regulators scrutinize⁣ staking economics ‍in fund structures;
• Contingencies ⁤such as temporary gates consistent with offering documents, cross-collateralized credit lines for intraday bridging, and pre-approved in-kind redemptions of LSTs or wrapped assets when cash windows tighten.

By integrating institutional staking‌ practices-exemplified by large ‌managers partnering‌ with ⁣specialized providers like Figment-with disciplined ​buffers, ‌hedges, and disclosures, ‌funds can protect creations and redemptions across⁣ Bitcoin and multi-chain portfolios while ‌balancing⁢ opportunity and​ risk in today’s ‌evolving ‌crypto market microstructure.

Governance and compliance roadmap including SOC Type Two audits on chain ⁤dashboards ⁣and independent attestations

Institutional-grade crypto governance ⁣ now blends ⁤customary assurance frameworks with transparent, on-chain ‍telemetry. A robust roadmap anchors around a SOC 2 Type ⁤II program that ‍proves control design and operating effectiveness over a defined period‍ (typically 6-12 months)⁤ across Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality,⁤ and privacy. For Bitcoin custodians, exchanges, and ETF⁤ service providers, this means auditable key management (MPC/multisig with⁣ segregation of duties), deterministic wallet reconciliation, incident response SLAs, and change management for node and custody infrastructure. Complementing this, ⁣ on-chain ⁣dashboards deliver real-time proof points-e.g.,​ address-level holdings, Proof of Reserves with Merkle trees or oracle-based attestations, and⁤ settlement latency metrics-reducing reliance on self-reported figures. Independent ​attestations from qualified firms (SOC⁤ 2 Type‌ II, ISO/IEC 27001,‌ and chain-specific ⁢ Proof of‌ liabilities ⁣ reviews) form a triangulation: auditor-tested controls, cryptographic reserve verification, and live network ​data. Notably, the operational move by large asset managers⁣ toward staking infrastructure-illustrated by news‍ that Grayscale selected Figment to power staking in certain Ethereum ⁣ and ​ Solana ‌funds-signals rising expectations for institutional controls ⁤across the broader ecosystem. While Bitcoin itself does not involve staking, cross-asset ‍practices are converging, ⁢with investors increasingly expecting Bitcoin service providers ​to match the uptime, telemetry, and third-party oversight standards now common in ETH/SOL ⁢staking products.

For investors and builders, ​the next phase is ⁤about continuous assurance rather than point-in-time PDFs. As spot Bitcoin ETFs, regulated custodians, and ​MiCA/SEC/NYDFS oversight raise the ‌bar, best-in-class programs tie ‌ governance to verifiable data and timely disclosures: board-level risk‌ committees, ‌quarterly control health ​reporting,⁢ and⁤ on-chain proofs anchored to⁢ Bitcoin or Ethereum as immutable audit logs. Newcomers should demand plain-English summary attestations and user-verifiable Merkle proofs; experienced users can scrutinize cold-vs-hot wallet ratios, validator/operator policies⁣ in multi-asset platforms, and slashing-avoidance procedures where relevant. To operationalize this, prioritize providers that publish attestation cadences (e.g., monthly PoR plus ⁣annual SOC 2 Type⁤ II), ‌expose labeled⁤ addresses, and disclose governance key quorum thresholds.In practice, look for the following:

• Control evidence: recent SOC 2 Type II ⁣report (with scope covering custody, wallets, monitoring), and independent Proof of‌ Reserves with client-verifiable Merkle leaf checks.
• Transparent telemetry: on-chain dashboards showing aggregate balances, flow analysis across‍ exchanges/custodians, and uptime/error budgets for nodes and signing services.
• Risk controls: dual-approval withdrawals, policy ‍engines limiting address whitelists, and incident‍ disclosures within defined SLAs.
• Cross-asset rigor: where staking is offered (ETH/SOL), clear slashing insurance terms and validator diversity-standards that signal operational maturity benefiting Bitcoin users too.

Risk mitigation recommendations​ diversify​ validator operators cap stake per pool and publish⁢ slashing and downtime reports

Diversifying validator operators and capping ⁤stake per pool ⁢are now baseline controls for institutional staking across Ethereum and ‍ Solana, where correlated downtime or software ‍defects can ⁣impair rewards and-on Ethereum-trigger slashing.⁢ The industry’s caution stems from real incidents: Ethereum experienced two brief​ finality interruptions in May⁤ 2023 that were mitigated by client diversity, underscoring why no single operator or client implementation should approach the Byzantine thresholds (≈33%​ for liveness, ≈66% for‍ finality).⁤ In ⁣practice,many professional allocators set internal caps ⁣of roughly 15-22% per operator ‍to ensure any outage does not halt ‌a‌ pool or degrade ⁢network health.⁢ While slashing remains rare on ⁢Ethereum (historically⁤ a small fraction of a percent‌ of‍ all validators), concentration risk is a persistent concern. The recent institutional ​move-Grayscale selecting ‍Figment to power⁢ staking in its Ethereum ‍and Solana products-illustrates a market preference for multi-operator resilience, formal ​ SLAs, and verifiable performance histories. For multi-asset investors anchored in Bitcoin’s proof-of-work, the takeaway is analogous: just as mining-pool ‌centralization heightens systemic risk, validator concentration can amplify operational and governance risks in‍ proof-of-stake ecosystems that increasingly influence crypto liquidity and sentiment.

To raise the bar ⁤on transparency, ‌operators ‌and staking pools should publish slashing⁢ and downtime reports ‌with auditable metrics and clear remediation paths. This aligns ​with rising expectations as regulated products expand globally⁣ and U.S. scrutiny⁤ of staking-as-a-service persists, while frameworks like the EU’s mica emphasize disclosures and operational controls. Actionable steps include independent monitoring for uptime, ⁤missed proposals/attestations, and inclusion delay; ⁤disclosure of⁤ MEV policies; and‍ adoption of DVT (Distributed Validator Technology)⁣ to reduce single-operator failure ‌modes.⁤ on Solana,spreading stake to increase the network’s⁤ Nakamoto coefficient and ⁢avoiding⁢ single hosting providers or geographies ​reduces correlated failure risk. For‍ allocators, these controls translate into ‌better risk-adjusted ⁣rewards rather ​than⁤ headline⁢ APY‍ alone. The following‍ practices are increasingly standard among institutions and suitable for newcomers using reputable pools:

• Cap concentration: ⁤Limit any ⁣operator to ≈15-22%⁣ of a pool’s stake;‌ diversify across geographies, ‍data centers, ⁢and clients (e.g., Lighthouse, Prysm, Teku, Nimbus on Ethereum).
• Adopt DVT: Utilize Obol or ⁢SSV-style setups to shard‍ validator keys and tolerate ‍node/operator failures without downtime.
• Publish verifiable reports: Monthly slashing/downtime summaries with on-chain ‌references; disclose ‍ uptime %, ⁢missed blocks, and MEV distribution policy.
• Formal SLAs‍ and coverage: Document performance SLAs,‍ incident response timelines, and any slashing-loss coverage or insurance.
• Automated risk guards: Set exit/pausing ‌triggers for operators breaching error-rate‌ or ⁣latency thresholds; conduct chaos tests and client⁢ diversity drills.
• Regulatory readiness: Maintain KYC/AML and reporting workflows appropriate to jurisdiction; clarify whether custodial​ products may or‍ may not stake⁣ underlying assets.

Q&A

Q: What ⁢did Grayscale announce?
A:⁢ Grayscale said it has selected Figment as ⁤its staking infrastructure provider⁤ to enable staking ⁤in its Ethereum and Solana funds, introducing staking yields to U.S.-regulated⁢ digital-asset products.

Q: Why ‌is this significant?
A: It marks a first for ⁢U.S. regulated​ crypto funds⁢ to operationalize on-chain ⁢staking rewards ⁤at scale,possibly ⁢boosting⁤ net⁤ returns⁣ while keeping assets under qualified custody and within compliance frameworks.Q: Which⁢ Grayscale products⁤ are involved?
A: The ⁢initiative covers Grayscale’s ‍Ethereum and ‌Solana funds in ⁣the United States. Implementation will be phased and subject to the⁢ specific terms, disclosures, and regulatory status of each vehicle.Q: Who is Figment?
A: Figment ⁤is an institutional⁢ staking provider that‌ operates validators ⁤across major ⁤proof-of-stake networks. It focuses ⁣on enterprise-grade⁣ uptime, security, and​ reporting for asset managers, custodians, and banks.Q: How will staking be implemented without compromising custody?
A: Assets remain with the funds’ qualified ⁣custodian. The ‌custodian delegates stake to Figment-run validators‍ using protocols that ‍separate withdrawal/control⁣ keys from validator operations, preserving custody and segregation​ of assets.Q: How are staking rewards handled?
A: Rewards are expected to accrue to the funds, net ‌of validator fees and expenses, and be ⁤reflected in net⁢ asset value.⁣ Yields are ‍variable, not guaranteed, and depend on network conditions and validator ⁣performance.

Q: Will ‌investors face⁣ lockups or liquidity constraints?
A: Fund shares are intended to trade or be created/redeemed per their normal⁢ mechanisms. however, network-level constraints ⁣can affect timing: Ethereum ‌validator exits are subject to a queue,⁤ and Solana has epoch-based cooldowns. These factors may influence operational liquidity at the fund⁢ level.

Q: What are the key risks?
A: – Slashing or downtime risk at the validator level
– Protocol changes or governance decisions that alter staking economics
– Regulatory ‍or tax changes
– MEV⁤ and operational risks ​on Ethereum
– ‍Liquidity and tracking-error risk if network constraints affect creations/redemptions
past performance of staking yields is not indicative of future results.

Q: Does the provider offer slashing protection?
A: Figment ⁣advertises ⁢institutional-grade risk controls and, in some programs, slashing​ coverage. Any protections,‌ limits, ⁤or exclusions will depend ​on the specific agreement governing the funds and should be reviewed in official disclosures.

Q: Will management ⁣fees change?
A: Grayscale’s ⁣base management fees are ​separate from staking operations. Validator fees are generally taken from gross rewards before they accrue ⁤to the fund. Net yield will​ reflect‍ both fees and operating performance.

Q: How will ⁤compliance be maintained?
A: Staking will be conducted in⁤ coordination with the ‌funds’‌ custodian and administrator,‌ following documented policies on key management, validator selection, monitoring, and segregation of duties. The funds will avoid activities that could introduce governance or additional regulatory complexities.

Q:⁢ How ‌does⁣ this compare‍ with international‍ markets?
A: Europe has offered staked ETPs for some time. Grayscale’s move brings comparable functionality to U.S.-regulated products, potentially narrowing​ a competitive ⁤gap⁤ with European offerings.

Q: What does this mean for the broader ETF/ETP landscape?
A: If executed smoothly, it could set a precedent for integrating protocol-native yield into U.S. crypto funds,‍ intensifying competition ⁣among issuers and service providers while testing how regulators view staking within registered⁣ products.

Q: What should investors watch next?
A: – Product-specific⁣ filings and disclosures detailing staking mechanics, fees, ‍and risk controls
– ‌Timeline for phased activation​ across ​the funds
– Changes in NAV behavior⁣ relative to ⁤spot markets‌ as staking‍ rewards accrue
– any regulatory updates on‍ staking within ⁢U.S.⁤ fund structures

Q: What about taxes?
A: Staking ⁤rewards received by a fund​ may be treated as income at the fund level and reflected in investor⁢ outcomes accordingly. Tax treatment can vary; investors‍ should consult a tax advisor and review fund tax disclosures.

Final ‌Thoughts

Grayscale’s selection of‌ Figment to⁢ support staking across its ethereum and Solana funds underscores how large issuers are‍ trying to add yield ‍features⁢ while staying within‌ regulated, custodial frameworks. The move will be closely⁢ watched as managers navigate‍ validator ​performance, slashing risk controls, fee transparency, liquidity and redemption mechanics, and evolving U.S. guidance on ⁣staking ​within investment products.

If successful, the⁤ partnership ⁤could set a template for how‍ staking is⁢ operationalized at scale in mainstream vehicles. For now,​ investors and rivals alike will be tracking execution, rewards accrual, ​and reporting ‍practices‍ as staking moves ‌further ⁤into the core of regulated digital-asset offerings.