The Factory: Without Standards for Institutional Staking, Crisis Looms
This is the first op-ed in a series in partnership with Fact Machine, an opinion markets facilitator. Each opinion will be released with an article, a podcast, and an opinion market.
Opinion by: Thomas Chaffee, co-founder of GlobalStake
*****
Prelude
The Factory is launching a series with guests who put their name on one specific, arguable thesis - in writing and on the camera - and then face a public vote.
First up: Global Stake’s Thomas Chaffee argues crypto staking needs real institutional rules to succeed. The live Fact Machine opinion market in relation (”Has regulation helped or hurt crypto?”) will open at 4pm ET today and run for 24 hours. The podcast will drop on Sunday at 2pm ET.
So, you’ve got 24 hours to stake your position before the market locks. DCN readers get $10 to start trading via referral (details in the op-ed). New guest, new argument, every weekend going forward. This is round one.
Preview the markets at alpha.factmachine.com. The opinion market opens at 4pm ET (20:00 UTC) on August 1.
Tune in tomorrow when we drop the video interview with Wyatt Clancy, VP of Global Stake.
Without Standards for Institutional Staking, Crisis Looms
Opinion by: Thomas Chaffee, co-founder of GlobalStake
The SEC declared last summer that certain liquid staking activities don’t constitute securities offerings, clearing a long-standing barrier to institutional participation. For asset managers, the move signaled a lucrative opportunity to boost returns via staking yields.
But as institutions put their crypto holdings to work, they risk straining infrastructure that was never designed for institutional rigor. Most staking platforms today were built for retail participation: quick to deploy, optimized for developer experience, and tolerant of risk that fiduciaries cannot accept.
Without rapid adaptation, the mismatch between institutional capital and retail-grade infrastructure could lead to fragmented adoption and systemic vulnerabilities. The industry must move quickly to define and enforce standards that make institutional staking safe, auditable, and scalable, or institutional staking will quickly lose momentum—or worse, spark a confidence crisis.
The limitations of retail-grade staking
Most staking infrastructure in use today was never built for fiduciary investors. Web3 evolved to serve retail users: individuals who can tolerate limited transparency, irregular reporting, and occasional downtime. Institutions, by contrast, operate under strict legal obligations. They must demonstrate that capital is safeguarded, service providers are properly vetted, and operational risks are controlled through independent oversight and auditable processes.
The vast majority of today’s staking platforms—regardless of how well-designed they are for retail—simply do not meet these requirements. They often lack independent audits, consistent reporting, or clear protections against losses.
Most institutions will be unwilling to tolerate these risks, and without deeper standards around infrastructure independence, validator operations, and jurisdictional compliance, they will avoid on-chain participation.
At the same time, for those who do enter the space, there’s a deeper risk that goes largely unaddressed: infrastructure concentration and systemic fragility. Even staking platforms marketed as “institutional-grade” often run on shared cloud environments, rely on bundled providers with no independent oversight, and mask validator performance behind curated dashboards.
Put differently, they carry underlying tech risk due to their reliance on third-party software, often suffer from resilience issues due to homogenized equipment, and concentrate risk in a small number of staking providers. These setups create correlated failure risks across the market—just as we saw in past cycles where one point of failure cascaded into broader contagion.
What should a gold standard for institutional staking include?
For staking to work at an institutional scale, it needs a framework that goes far beyond retail convenience.
This starts at the infrastructure level. Institutions need dedicated bare-metal servers under the provider’s physical control. Relying on rented cloud boxes shared with unknown operators exposes institutions to concentrated outages, jurisdictional uncertainty, and an expanded attack surface — risks that retail investors may tolerate, but fiduciaries cannot. Institutions also need assurance that operations meet established standards of integrity. That means SOC 2-level compliance, with audits that test security, confidentiality, and reliability, should be non-negotiable.
Transparency is just as critical. Investors can’t rely on dashboards or marketing claims; they need auditable, real-time data on validator performance, slashing events, and how rewards are distributed. Compliance must also extend to jurisdictional rules on identity and anti-money-laundering, so that participation doesn’t trigger hidden regulatory exposure. And finally, the tax question: staking rewards create messy reporting obligations. Institutions need providers to deliver standardized documentation that fiduciaries can file with confidence.
Taken together, these elements would give institutional investors what they already expect in every other corner of finance: predictable standards, enforceable safeguards, and clarity they can explain to auditors and regulators. Without them, staking will remain risky, fragmented, and one high-profile failure away from eroding trust across the market.
History shows the cost of delay is high
The danger isn’t abstract. If the industry drags its feet on staking standards, one of two outcomes is almost inevitable: a high-profile failure that makes headlines, or a regulatory crackdown that smothers innovation under one-size-fits-all rules. Either scenario would chill institutional participation just as it’s starting to take hold.
History offers plenty of warnings. In the early 2000s, massive accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom shattered public trust and cost investors billions of dollars. Because corporate governance standards were weak and inconsistently enforced, Congress responded with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a sweeping piece of legislation that imposed strict new requirements on financial reporting and internal controls. The lesson is clear: when industries fail to police themselves, regulators step in with blunt instruments.
That matters far beyond crypto. Institutions don’t just bring capital; they bring stability, professionalism, and legitimacy. Their participation anchors markets, making them less volatile and more credible to mainstream investors. Lose that, and crypto risks sliding back into tech-bro limbo.
***
Thomas Chaffee is the co-founder of GlobalStake, a carbon-neutral company that delivers institutional-grade, SOC-2-compliant staking infrastructure built on bare-metal hardware.
Tom is a serial technology entrepreneur, Silvermine Partner and co-founder of GlobalStake. He was a public company CEO exiting to two Fortune 500 companies alongside serving on many boards. Most recently, he and his wife co-founded a nonprofit Title 1 charter school in Sarasota, FL serving more than 650 families in need. Tom is an accomplished musician who misspent his youth playing with The Beach Boys, Dan Fogelberg and many other major acts.