Staking and trading

Hey guys, quick question When I stake my coins are they locked up and cannot be moved or am I able to move them out of the wallet and trade.

There is no technical restriction stemming from staking.

You can move or trade them if you want. As long as they are not held in an exchange that is.

1 Like

Is there a confirmation for that statement somewhere?

@Camori, there’s no staking yet, it’s a work in progress, and no paper about it yet too. So answers to this question are at best guesses.

This is my understanding of how staking works when it comes out. Information was gathered watching hours of YouTube interviews, etc. :slight_smile:

While no final version of staking paper exists, we can see the contours of what it would be…

1 Like

No doubt, but it would be really nice to make it apparent in the answer that it’s your guess. For example, like this:

@Camori, no official information is available at the moment on this particular point, but I would expect all staked coins to be locked for the duration of at least one epoch (5 days, at the moment). Technically it is possible to have no lock at all, but in my opinion this solution would be suboptimal, even tho it has its own pros and cons. It will be interesting to see, how exactly IOHK solves this problem :slight_smile:


Thanks guys, so no official answer on this yet. Will be interesting how they will see this problem. I want to stake my coins for long term gains but I like to try and scalp a bit on the markets as well.

Thought I’d add to the noise.
My conclusion, @Camori, after watching youtube videos and interviews in my own right was that the staked sum is un-spendable for as long as it is being staked, i.e. made available towards receiving the staking rewards.
In conclusion, it is indeed, as Ruslan put it, still guesswork until a definitive paper comes out. :wink:

1 Like

I was under the strong impression that it had been officially stated that staking rewards will be based on a snapshot at the start of each epoch, with delegated ADA being transferable during the epoch but if so then undelegated (unless redelegated) in the next epoch. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where that came from. Did I imagine it???

I don’t know about any source that would confirm that delegated ADA is transferable. Staking is based on a snapshot at the beginning of each epoch, that is correct, but from my understanding it only was mentioned as a note than any new coins, acquired during current epoch are not really staked until the beginning of the next one.

Canceling stake just by transferring coins is quite hard for implementation and for usage, at least as far as I can imagine it as a developer, since when you delegate the coins - you sign and commit a special delegation certificate to the blockchain. The most straightforward way for both the protocol and a user would be to make those certificates last for the whole epoch, and to be auto-renewable, unless explicitly cancelled. But it is technically possible (even tho I would not like that :slight_smile: ), no critical problem in there. It may work just by user cancelling the certificate at any point during the epoch (and paying fees for that, of course).

Much more interesting is the fact that if you have in-epoch stake transfers - then you trade-off borderline security for liquidity. It allows to trade even staked coins and would bring interesting dynamic when toward the end of each epoch massive volume of coins would float off-exchanges toward wallets, and vice-versa at the beginning of each epoch (whether it is good or bad for an ecosystem is beyond my expertise), and that would generate more fees, than just a locked stake. But in return you allow a situation in your system when an actor with NO stake may still be in control of a significant portion of the system. Borderline case is that you make technically possible for someone to perform a 51% attack, having almost nothing at stake at the same time. Large portion of all security assumptions is based on the fact that it would be economically unprofitable for an actor with a large stake to undermine the system, and this trade-off would make it possible to have no stake while having the control by selling off all your stake immediately after the snapshot.

Of course this is, as I have mentioned, some borderline improbable cases, and, of course, real threat estimations are much MUCH harder and more complex than I have (or could have) naively described :slight_smile: But it should not be completely ignored. So I don’t say that either option is impossible, my arguments just that full-epoch locks are easier to implement and understand and that they do not require additional security proofs. IOHK may decide to go with either option, but if they decide to go with no lock - I expect the paper to contain extensive proof on how they mitigate the security weakening.

Exactly why it will be interesting to see how they solve this problem :slight_smile:


Comprehensive and educative answer as usual Ruslan, thanks a lot! :smile:


Yes. That. This is my strong impression too, unless we had the same dream :slight_smile:

This is what I thought of when I heard them say in-epoch transfers were possible. Indeed, it would be good to see what they come up with… thank you for explaining the nuances.

1 Like

How much is staking profitt estimated…?


A quick question please
After the coin tossing to choose the slot leader, it was found a specific love lace ( find satoshi ) right ?
Lets say it belong to bob

the reward goes to bob in this way ? ( very simplified )
The reward ( the amount that has yet to be decided by IOHK) - ( % Pool fee + % Inflation +
% treasury tax )

  • what would be the reward for all the other stakeholders that delegate their stake to the pool in which the lovelace was found in the coin tossing ?

Do you mean that Bob has delegated his stake to a pool in this scenario? If so - then reward does not go to Bob - reward for this slot goes to the pool, and then pools takes this reward, subtracts its fee and divides the rest among all the delegates in this pool. Very simplified.

So, for example. Bob has delegated his 100 coins of stake to a pool. Leader selection algorithm is executed at the beginning of an epoch and it determines that Bob will be the leader of the slot 15842. Since Bob has created a digital certificate that gives all the rights of signing his blocks to the pool, when slot 15842 happens - pool creates a block rightfully. At the end of the epoch pool receives, let’s say, 500 ADA for this created block. Pool has a fee of 5%, just for simplicity, so they take 25 ADA to themselves. The remainder of 475 ADA is to be distributed among all the delegates. Let’s say that this pool has total stake of 10’000 ADA, so Bob with his 100 delegated ADA has the share of exactly 1% in that pool. So out of this block Bob will receive 4.75 ADA coins. And he will receive (approximately) the same amount for every block created by this pool, no matter who was the owner of the selected coins.

1 Like

Yes, thank you very much @vantuz-subhuman! its what i understood

for curiosity, I m very interested to calculate what posibilities that may allow to gain more ADA in stacking

if delegating all the stake to one pool or to split it to many pools, as it will exist the 1% to prevent the existence or formation of bigger pools, at which point begins to be more interesting to split the stake to many pools to have more odds ?
yes i understand that splitting is always bad in terms of own stake vs pool stake, but if some lets say 5 pool get a lot of hype around them and most of people delegate to them, actually won´t be interesting at all to stack with those 5 pools, right ?
I m not interested in how much ADA, but on how would work ?
I don´t know if i explained myself right

Splitting your stake to multiple pools is always a good idea.

  1. Staking IS voting. Stakeholders vote for pools they trust to run the network. So by splitting your stake among 5-10 good pools - you are helping the system in general.

  2. Is it just safer. If any pool gets hacked or goes rogue - you only risk a small portion of stake. NOTE! That users do NOT loose their stake if something happens to the pool. But if pool will act badly - delegates will loose profits. So diversifying stake is as rational as diversifying investments.

  3. Less chance to cap any of pools you have selected. Over-capping the pool (when pools starts to have more than 1/k total stake) is suboptimal for all its investors, so splitting the stake also helps to mitigate this problem AND potentially raise the profits.

Read this comment for a detailed example explanation:

1 Like

Thank you! …Splitting will be :wink:

Hi Sean here , just wondering what date is it possible to join a minning/staking pool ?

This information is not available yet from IOHK, and no one could assure otherwise at this date
But it seems around Q4