Skip to main content

Introduction to Staking

New to Staking?

Start your staking journey or explore more information about staking on Polkadot's Home Page. Discover the new Staking Dashboard that makes staking much easier and check this extensive article list to help you get started. All the examples presented on Polkadot apply to Kusama as well.

Here you will learn about what staking is, why it is important and how it works on Kusama.

Proof-of-Stake (PoS)​

Blockchain networks use consensus mechanisms to finalize blocks on the chain. Consensus is the process of agreeing on something, in this case, the progression of the blockchain or how blocks are added to the chain. Consensus consists of two actions:

  • Block production, i.e. the way multiple blocks candidates are produced, and
  • Block finality, i.e. the way only one block out of many candidates is selected and added to the canonical chain (see this article for more information about finality).

Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) are well-known mechanisms used to reach consensus in a secure and trustless way on public blockchains, where there are many participants who do not know each other (and probably never will). In PoW, network security relies on the fact that the miners who are responsible for adding blocks to the chain must compete to solve difficult mathematic puzzles to add blocks - a solution that has been criticized for the wastage of energy. For doing this work, miners are typically rewarded with tokens.

In PoS networks like Kusama the security of the network depends on the amount of capital locked on the chain: the more the capital locked, the lower the chance of an attack on the network, as the attacker needs to incur a heavy loss to orchestrate a successful attack (more on this later on). The process of locking tokens on the chain is called staking.

Similar to the miners in PoW networks, PoS networks have validators, but they do not have to compete with each other to solve mathematical puzzles. They are instead pre-selected to produce the blocks based on the stake backing them. Token holders can lock funds on the chain and for doing so, they are getting staking rewards. There is thus an economic incentive for token holders to become active participants who contribute to the economic security and stability of the network. PoS networks in general are therefore more inclusive than PoW networks, as participants do not need to have either technical knowledge about blockchain technology or experience in running mining equipment.

PoS ensures that everybody participating in the staking process has "skin in the game" and thus can be held accountable. In case of misbehavior, participants in the staking process can be punished or slashed, and depending on the gravity of the situation, their stake can be partly or fully confiscated by the network. It is not in a staker's economic interest to orchestrate an attack and risk losing tokens. Any rational actor staking on the network would want to get rewarded, and the PoS network rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior.

Nominated Proof-of-Stake (NPoS)​

Kusama implements Nominated Proof-of-Stake (NPoS), a relatively novel and sophisticated mechanism to select the validators who are allowed to participate in its consensus protocol. The NPoS encourages KSM holders to participate as nominators. NPoS encourages KSM holders to participate as nominators.

Any potential validators can indicate their intention to be a validator candidate. Their candidacies are made public to all nominators, and a nominator, in turn, submits a list of up to candidates that it supports, and the network will automatically distribute the stake among validators in an even manner so that the economic security is maximized. In the next era, a certain number of validators having the most KSM backing get elected and become active. For more information about the election algorithm go to this page on the wiki or this research article. As a nominator, a minimum of is required to submit an intention to nominate, which can be thought of as registering to be a nominator. Note that in NPoS the stake of both nominators and validators can be slashed. For an in-depth review of NPoS see this research article.

Minimum Nomination to Receive Staking Rewards

Although the minimum nomination intent is , it does not guarantee staking rewards. The nominated amount has to be greater than minimum active nomination, which is a dynamic value that can be much higher than . This dynamic value depends on the amount of KSM being staked, in addition to the selected nominations.

Nominating Validators​

Nominating on Kusama requires 2 actions:

  • Locking tokens on-chain.
  • Selecting a set of validators, to whom these locked tokens will automatically be allocated to.

How many tokens you lock up is completely up to you - as are the validators you wish to select. The action of locking tokens is also known as bonding. You can also refer to your locked tokens as your bonded tokens, or staked tokens. Likewise, selecting validators is also known as backing or nominating validators. These terms are used interchangeably by the community. From now on locked tokens will be referred to as bonded tokens.

Once the previous 2 steps are completed and you are nominating, your bonded tokens could be allocated to one or more of your selected validators, and this happens every time the active validator set changes. This validator set is updated every era on Kusama.

Unlike other staking systems, Polkadot automatically chooses which of your selected validators will be backed by your bonded tokens. Selecting a group of validators increases your chances of consistently backing at least one who is active. This results in your bonded tokens being allocated to validators more often, which means more network security and more rewards. This is in strong contrast to other staking systems that only allow you to back one validator; if that validator is not active, you as a staker will also not be. Polkadot's nomination model solves this.

Kusama uses tools ranging from election theory to game theory to discrete optimization, to develop an efficient validator selection process that offers fair representation and security, thus avoiding uneven power and influence among validators. The election algorithms used by Kusama are based on the Proportional Justified Representation (PJR) methods like Phragmen. For more information about PJR methods visit this research article.

Eras and Sessions​

The stake from nominators is used to increase the number of tokens held by such candidates, increasing their chance of being selected by the election algorithm for block production during a specific era. An era is a period of 6 hours during which an active set of validators is producing blocks and performing other actions on the chain. This means that not all validators are in the active set and such set changes between eras. Each era is divided into 6 epochs or sessions during which validators are assigned as block producers to specific time frames or slots. This means that validators know the slots when they will be required to produce a block within a specific session, but they do not know all the slots within a specific era. Having sessions adds a layer of security because it decreases the chance of having multiple validators assigned to a slot colluding to harm the network.

Staking Rewards​

Validators who produce a block are rewarded with tokens, and they can share rewards with their nominators. Both validators and nominators can stake their tokens on chain and receive staking rewards at the end of each era. The staking system pays out rewards equally to all validators regardless of stake. Thus, having more stake in a validator does not influence the amount of block rewards it receives. This avoids the centralization of power to a few validators. There is a probabilistic component in the calculation of rewards, so they may not be exactly equal for all validators. In fact, during each era validators can earn era points by doing different tasks on chain. The more the points, the higher the reward for a specific era. This promotes validators' activity on chain. To know more about era points, and how and on which basis they are distributed visit the dedicated page. Distribution of the rewards is pro-rata to all stakers after the validator's commission is deducted.

Skin in the game when Staking​

The security of PoS networks depends on the amount of staked tokens. To successfully attack the network, a malicious actor would need to accrue a large number of tokens or would need different participants to collude and act maliciously. If there is an attack in the case of NPoS, both the validator(s) and nominators will be slashed resulting in their stake being partially or fully confiscated by the network and then deposited to the treasury. There is little interest for a rational network participant to act in a harmful way because NPoS ensures that all participants can be held accountable for their bad actions. In NPoS, validators are paid equal rewards regardless of the amount of stake backing them, thus avoiding large payouts to few large validators which might lead to centralization.

Being a Nominator​

Tasks and Responsibilities of a Nominator​

Validators. Since validator slots are limited, most of those who wish to stake their KSM and contribute to the economic security of the network will be nominators, thus here we focus on the role of nominators. However, it is worth mentioning that validators do most of the heavy lifting: they run the validator nodes and manage session keys, produce new block candidates in BABE, vote and come to consensus in GRANDPA, validate the state transition function of parachains, and possibly some other responsibilities regarding data availability and XCM. For more information, you can take a look at the validator docs to understand what you need to do as a validator. If you want to become a validator you can consult this guide.

Nominators. Nominators have far fewer responsibilities than validators. These include selecting validators and monitoring their performance, keeping an eye on changing commission rates (a validator can change commission at any time), and general health monitoring of their validators' accounts. Thus, while not being completely set-it-and-forget-it, a nominator's experience is relatively hands-off compared to that of a validator, and even more with nomination pools. For more information, you can take a look at the nominator guide to understanding your responsibilities as a nominator.

If you want to become a nominator, see this guide. If you are a beginner and would like to securely stake your tokens using the Polkadot-JS UI, refer to this support article. The tutorial presented in the support article is demonstrated on Polkadot, but the procedure is the same for Kusama.

Polkadot Staking Dashboard

The Staking Dashboard provides a more user-friendly alternative to staking. See the instructions in this support article to learn how to stake with the dashboard.

Pools. Pools are "built" on top of NPoS to provide a very low barrier to entry to staking, without sacrificing Polkadot's strict security model.

Selection of Validators​

The task of choosing validators is not simple, as it should take into account nominator reward and risk preferences. Ideally one aims to maximize the reward-to-risk ratio by maximizing rewards and minimizing risks, with sometimes having to compromise between the two, as minimizing risks might decrease rewards as well. Nominators should pay attention, especially to six criteria when nominating validators (not in order of importance):

  • recent history of the era points earned across eras
  • validator's self stake (shows skin in the game)
  • total stake backing the validator (which is the sum of self stake and the stake coming from nominators)
  • commission fees (i.e. how much validators charge nominators)
  • verified identity
  • previous slashes

The diagram below shows how the selection of those criteria affects the reward-to-risk ratio.

rewards and risks diagram

Validator Selection Criteria​

To maximize rewards and minimize risk, one could select those validators that:

  • have era points above average (because they will get more rewards for being active),
  • have the total stake backing the validator below the average active validator stake (because they will pay out more rewards per staked KSM),
  • have high own stake (because if slashed they have something to lose),
  • have low commission fees but not 0% (because it makes sense that for doing the heavy lifting, validators ask for a small commission),
  • have on-chain registered identity (because it adds a layer of trust and possibly provides access to their website and contact details),
  • and have not been slashed (meaning that their on-chain behavior is genuine).

Keeping Track of Nominated Validators​

Nominators must periodically check their validators

Nominating is not a "set and forget" operation. The whole NPoS system is dynamic and nominators should periodically monitor the performance and reputation of their validators. Failing to do so could result in applied slashes and/or rewards not being paid out, possibly for a prolonged period.

Although the theory can be used as a general guideline, in practice it is more complicated and following the theory might not necessarily lead to the desired result. Validators might have the total stake backing them below average, low commission and above average era points in one era and then have a different profile in the next one. Selection based the criteria like on-chain identity, slash history and low commission make the staking rewards deterministic. But some criteria vary more than others, with era points being the most variable and thus one of the key probabilistic components of staking rewards. Part of this probability is directly related to the fact that a validator can produce blocks for a parachain (i.e. para-validators) or the relay chain, with para-validators earning more era points per unit time (see this page for more information). The role can switch between sessions, and you can look at the staking tab on the Polkadot-JS UI to know which validator is producing blocks for the relay chain or parachains.

It is not recommended to change nominations because of the low era points of a validator in a single era. Variability in rewards due to the era points should level out over time. If a validator consistently gets era points below average, it makes sense to nominate a better-performing validator for the health of the network and increased staking rewards. See this support article to understand in detail how to select the set of validators to nominate.

Stash and Controller Accounts for Staking​

Two different accounts can be used to securely manage your funds while staking.

  • Stash: This account holds funds bonded for staking, but delegates some functions to a controller account. As a result, you may actively participate in staking with a stash private key kept in a cold wallet like Ledger, meaning it stays offline all the time. Stash account keys are used to sign staking actions such as bonding additional funds.

  • Controller: This account acts on behalf of the stash account, signaling decisions about nominating and validating. It can set preferences like commission (for validators) and the staking rewards payout account. The earned rewards can be bonded (locked) immediately for bonding on your stash account, which would effectively compound the rewards you receive over time. You could also choose to have them deposited to your controller account or a different account as a free (transferable) balance. If you are a validator, it can also be used to set your session keys. Controller accounts only need sufficient funds to pay for the transaction fees.

danger

Never leave a high balance on a controller account which are usually "hot" as their private key is stored on the device (PC, phone) and it is always exposed to the internet for potential hacks and scams. It is good practice to deposit rewards on the stash account or to send them to another account on a cold wallet.

staking

This hierarchy of separate keys for stash and controller accounts was designed to add a layer of protection to nominators and validator operators. The more often one exposes and uses a private key, the higher its vulnerability for hacks or scams. So, if one uses a key for multiple roles on a blockchain network, it is likely that the account can get compromised. Note that the damage linked to stolen private keys is different depending on the type of account derivation. In the case of soft derivation, all derived accounts are compromised. More information about account derivation can be found here.

info

For Ledger users staking directly on Ledger Live, currently, there is no option to use separate stash and controller accounts. That is if you stake on Ledger Live your stash account will be your controller too.

Ledger devices are now supported in Talisman extension. Users can import their Ledger accounts in the extension and use them as a stash and controller. You can find more information about Talisman and other third-party wallets that officially secured funding from the treasury here.

Claiming Staking Rewards​

Note that Kusama runs approximately 4x as fast as Polkadot, except for block production times. Polkadot will also produce blocks at approximately six-second intervals.

Rewards are calculated per era (approximately six hours on Kusama and twenty-four hours on Polkadot). These rewards are calculated based on era points, which have a probabilistic component. In other words, there may be slight differences in your rewards from era to era, and even amongst validators in the active set at the same time. These variations should cancel out over a long enough timeline. See the page on Validator Payout Guide.

The distribution of staking rewards to the nominators is not automatic and needs to be triggered by someone. Typically the validators take care of this, but anyone can permissionlessly trigger rewards payout for all the nominators whose stake has backed a specific validator in the active set of that era. Staking rewards are kept available for 84 eras, which is approximately 21 days. For more information on why this is so, see the page on simple payouts.

Payouts

Payouts are unclaimed rewards waiting to be paid out to both validators and nominators. If you go to the Staking payouts page on Polkadot-JS, you will see a list of all validators that you have nominated in the past 84 eras and for which you have not yet received a payout. The payout page is visible only to stakers.

Each validator as well as their nominators have the option to trigger the payout for all unclaimed eras. Note that this will pay everyone who was nominating that validator during those eras. Therefore, you may not see anything in this tab, yet still have received a payout if somebody (generally, but not necessarily, another nominator or the validator operator) has triggered the payout for that validator for that era.

Time limit to claim staking rewards

If nobody claims your staking rewards within 84 eras, then you will not be able to claim them and they will be lost. Additionally, if the validator unbonds all their own stake, any pending payouts will also be lost. Since unbonding takes days, nominators should check if they have pending payouts at least this often.

Rewards can be directed to the same account used to sign the payout (controller), or to the stash account (and either increasing the staked value or not increasing the staked value), or to a completely unrelated account. It is also possible to top-up / withdraw some bonded tokens without having to un-stake all staked tokens.

If you wish to know if you received a payout, you will have to check via a block explorer. See the relevant Support page for details. For specific details about validator payouts, please see this guide.

Slashing​

Slashing will happen if a validator misbehaves (e.g. goes offline, attacks the network, or runs modified software) in the network. They and their nominators will get slashed by losing a percentage of their bonded/staked DOT.

Any slashed DOT will be added to the Treasury. The rationale for this (rather than burning or distributing them as rewards) is that slashes may then be reverted by the Council by simply paying out from the Treasury. This would be useful in situations such as faulty slashes. In the case of legitimate slashing, it moves tokens away from malicious validators to those building the ecosystem through the normal Treasury process.

Validators with a larger total stake backing them will get slashed more harshly than less popular ones, so we encourage nominators to shift their nominations to less popular validators to reduce their possible losses.

It is important to realize that slashing only occurs for active validations for a given nominator, and slashes are not mitigated by having other inactive or waiting nominations. They are also not mitigated by the validator operator running separate validators; each validator is considered its own entity for purposes of slashing, just as they are for staking rewards.

In rare instances, a nominator may be actively nominating several validators in a single era. In this case, the slash is proportionate to the amount staked to that specific validator. With very large bonds, such as parachain liquid staking accounts, a nominator has multiple active nominations per era (Acala's LDOT nominator typically has 7-12 active nominations per era). Note that you cannot control the percentage of stake you have allocated to each validator or choose who your active validator will be (except in the trivial case of nominating a single validator). Staking allocations are controlled by the PhragmΓ©n algorithm.

Once a validator gets slashed, it goes into the state as an "unapplied slash". You can check this via Polkadot-JS UI. The UI shows it per validator and then all the affected nominators along with the amounts. While unapplied, a governance proposal can be made to reverse it during this period (7 days on Kusama, 28 days on Polkadot). After the grace period, the slashes are applied.

The following levels of offense are defined. However, these particular levels are not implemented or referred to in the code or in the system; they are meant as guidelines for different levels of severity for offenses. To understand how slash amounts are calculated, see the equations in the section below.

  • Level 1: isolated unresponsiveness, i.e. being offline for an entire session. Generally no slashing, only chilling.
  • Level 2: concurrent unresponsiveness or isolated equivocation, slashes a very small amount of the stake and chills.
  • Level 3: misconducts unlikely to be accidental, but which do not harm the network's security to any large extent. Examples include concurrent equivocation or isolated cases of unjustified voting in GRANDPA. Slashes a moderately small amount of the stake and chills.
  • Level 4: misconduct that poses serious security or monetary risk to the system, or mass collusion. Slashes all or most of the stake behind the validator and chills.

If you want to know more details about slashing, please look at our research page.

Chilling​

Chilling is the act of stepping back from any nominating or validating. It can be done by a validator or nominator at any time, taking effect in the next era. It can also specifically mean removing a validator from the active validator set by another validator, disqualifying them from the set of electable candidates in the next NPoS cycle.

Chilling may be voluntary and validator-initiated, e.g. if there is a planned outage in the validator's surroundings or hosting provider, and the validator wants to exit to protect themselves against slashing. When voluntary, chilling will keep the validator active in the current session, but will move them to the inactive set in the next. The validator will not lose their nominators.

When used as part of a punishment (initiated externally), being chilled carries an implied penalty of being un-nominated. It also disables the validator for the remainder of the current era and removes the offending validator from the next election.

Polkadot allows some validators to be disabled, but if the number of disabled validators gets too large, Polkadot will trigger a new validator election to get a full set. Disabled validators will need to resubmit their intention to validate and re-garner support from nominators.

For more on chilling, see the "How to Chill" page on this wiki.

Why and Why not to Stake?​

Pros of Staking​

  • 10% inflation/year when the network launches
  • 50% targeted active staking
  • ~20% annual nominal return

Up until now, the network has been following an inflation model that excludes the metric of active parachains. The ideal staking rate is not always 50%, as the number of active parachains influences the available liquidity that is available to secure the network.

Keep in mind that when the system's staking rate is lower than the ideal staking rate, the annual nominal return rate will be higher, encouraging more users to use their tokens for staking. On the contrary, when the system staking rate is higher than the ideal staking rate, the annual nominal return will be less, encouraging some users to withdraw.

Cons of Staking​

  • Tokens will be locked for about 28 days on Polkadot after unbonding, and seven days on Kusama.
  • Punishment in case of validator found to be misbehaving (see slashing).
  • You want to use the tokens for a parachain slot.

How many Validators does Polkadot have?​

Polkadot currently has validators. The top bound on the number of validators has not been determined yet, but should only be limited by the bandwidth strain of the network due to peer-to-peer message passing. The estimate of the number of validators that Polkadot will have at maturity is around 1000. Kusama, Polkadot's canary network, currently has validator slots in the active set.

Resources​