The Inefficiency of Proof-of-Stake Mechanism
Capital Inefficiency
In Proof-of-Stake (PoS) networks, delegators lock up their tokens to secure the chain and earn rewards. However, the capital committed to staking remains illiquid during the bonding period and throughout the unbonding phase. Although 100% of a delegator’s assets are locked, on average only about 5% of that capital effectively contributes to network security (for instance, by incurring risk of slashing events or active participation in consensus).
This discrepancy results in capital inefficiency: token holders are unable to leverage their staked assets elsewhere (e.g., in decentralized finance, or DeFi). This creates a significant opportunity cost for delegators who wish to both:
Support network security through staking.
Earn additional yields or participate in liquidity provisioning, lending, borrowing, and other DeFi activities.
Opportunity Cost and Unbonding
Returns Comparison
When the yields available through DeFi products (e.g., liquidity pools or yield farms) exceed staking rewards by a wide margin, asset holders may prefer to unbond their staked tokens. Although unstaking can incur penalties and involves waiting through an unbonding period (often 14–28 days), the higher returns in DeFi may justify this action.
Impact on Network Security
The opportunity cost of keeping tokens staked (i.e., foregoing higher yields elsewhere) can encourage delegators to leave the network. This exodus can adversely affect network security:
Fewer staked tokens mean lower overall collateral backing the chain.
Lower collateral heightens the risk of governance attacks or malicious validator behavior.
Case Study: Osmosis Launch
A notable example of capital migration occurred in June 2021, when Osmosis, an IBC-connected automated market maker (AMM) protocol, launched on the Cosmos ecosystem. This event showcased how significant DeFi incentives can draw staked assets away from PoS networks:
2.5% of bonded ATOM (valued at approximately $61.7M at the time) unbonded in the days following the Osmosis launch.
The sudden outflow from staked to unstaked positions reduced the overall security of the Cosmos Hub, as fewer tokens remained bonded to validators.
This scenario illustrated the practical effect of higher DeFi returns on PoS staking participation, emphasizing the vulnerability of PoS chains to capital flight when alternative yield opportunities arise.
Implications
Reduced Network Security A decrease in staked tokens undermines the chain’s resilience against misbehavior or attacks. If too many stakers unbond, the chain’s security and long-term sustainability are jeopardized.
Limited DeFi Participation Asset holders seeking to secure the network often sacrifice the possibility of using those same assets in lending, liquidity pools, or other DeFi activities. This choice can stifle innovation and liquidity in the broader ecosystem.
Balancing Yield Opportunities PoS networks must offer competitive staking rewards or alternative mechanisms to retain delegators. Otherwise, staked assets may continue to flow into DeFi protocols with superior returns.
Addressing Capital Inefficiency
Liquid Staking solutions have emerged as a primary strategy to resolve this tension between network security and DeFi participation. By issuing staked derivatives or representative tokens, liquid staking protocols allow users to:
Retain Staking Rewards: The underlying tokens remain staked, contributing to network security.
Unlock Liquidity: Users receive a liquid token that can be deployed in DeFi for liquidity provisioning, lending, borrowing, and more.
Quicksilver’s Role
Quicksilver is one such solution in the Cosmos ecosystem, aiming to provide a seamless experience for Cosmos SDK-based chains:
Security + Flexibility: Delegators can keep their tokens staked while still accessing DeFi opportunities through liquid staking derivatives.
Minimizing Opportunity Cost: By enabling staked assets to remain productive in other protocols, Quicksilver helps reduce the incentive to unbond.
Supporting Growth: As more delegators stake with Quicksilver, the overall security of PoS networks can improve, while DeFi ecosystems benefit from increased liquidity.
Conclusion
Capital inefficiency in PoS networks arises from the trade-off between locking up tokens for network security and seeking higher yields in DeFi. Events like the Osmosis launch exemplify how quickly tokens can migrate when alternative opportunities offer superior returns.
Last updated