What MiCA Means for DeFi Vault Operators and Institutional Allocators

<h2 id="series-hub-institutional-staking"><strong>Series: Hub | Institutional Staking</strong></h2><p>The Institutional Staking Hub is <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a>'s definitive reference for institutions building proof-of-stake programs. From foundational concepts to infrastructure selection and risk architecture, each article addresses a specific operational or technical dimension that determines how a staking program performs in practice.</p><p>This is article 2 in the series. Read the foundation first: <a href="https://p2p.org/economy/what-is-institutional-staking/">What Is Institutional Staking? A Complete Guide for Funds, Custodians, and Treasury Teams</a></p><h2 id="learnings-for-busy-readers">Learnings for Busy Readers</h2><p>What this article covers:</p><ul><li>What validator infrastructure is and what it actually does at the network level</li><li>The difference between self-operated and delegated validator models</li><li>The technical components that determine whether infrastructure is institutional-grade</li><li>How key management architecture affects custody, risk, and compliance</li><li>What client diversity means and why it matters for operational resilience</li><li>How DVT changes the risk architecture of validator operations</li><li>The metrics and certifications that define institutional-grade validator providers</li><li>A due diligence checklist for evaluating validator infrastructure</li></ul><p>The core argument: Validator infrastructure is not a commodity. The operational decisions made at the infrastructure layer determine uptime, slashing exposure, reward outcomes, and compliance posture. Institutions that treat validator selection as a risk management decision consistently achieve better outcomes than those that treat it as a cost optimisation exercise.</p><h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2><p>Most institutional conversations about staking start with reward rates. They should start with infrastructure.</p><p>Validator infrastructure is the operational layer that sits between an institution's capital and the proof-of-stake protocol it is participating in. It determines whether consensus participation is reliable or fragile, whether slashing exposure is managed or assumed, and whether the reporting an institution needs for accounting, audit, and compliance can actually be produced.</p><p>Major progress in validator infrastructure, institutional custody, multi-chain staking frameworks, and enterprise-grade reporting has made staking operationally viable at scale. For large asset managers, including pension funds, endowments, and conservative allocators, the legal uncertainty and operational risk that kept them on the sidelines are now falling away (Source: <a href="https://coinshares.com/us/insights/knowledge/institutional-staking-on-the-rise/?ref=p2p.org">CoinShares</a>).</p><p>But operational viability is not the same as operational quality. As institutions move from evaluation to deployment, the question changes from whether staking is viable to whether the infrastructure underpinning a specific staking program meets institutional standards. This article answers that question from the ground up.</p><h2 id="what-validator-infrastructure-is">What Validator Infrastructure Is</h2><p>In a proof-of-stake network, validators are the entities responsible for proposing and attesting to new blocks. They do not just hold staked capital. They run software, maintain network connections, sign messages, and participate in consensus rounds continuously. When a validator goes offline, misses attestations, or double-signs a message, the protocol responds with penalties. When a validator performs correctly, the protocol distributes rewards.</p><p>Validator infrastructure is everything that makes that participation happen reliably: the hardware or cloud architecture the validator software runs on, the key management system that controls signing credentials, the monitoring stack that detects and responds to anomalies, the client software that communicates with the network, and the reporting layer that captures everything for downstream use.</p><p>Ethereum supports over 1.1 million active validators in 2026, with average validator uptime near 99.2% across the network (Source: <a href="https://coinlaw.io/cryptocurrency-staking-statistics/?ref=p2p.org">CoinLaw</a>). That network average conceals significant variance between operators. In enterprise IT, Service Level Agreements (SLAs) define the expected uptime and reliability of a service provider. The blockchain space is increasingly moving in the same direction, especially as institutions explore staking as part of their portfolio strategy.</p><h2 id="self-operated-vs-delegated-validator-models">Self-Operated vs. Delegated Validator Models</h2><p>Institutions entering proof-of-stake networks have two structural choices for how they participate at the infrastructure layer.</p><h3 id="self-operated-validators"><strong>Self-operated validators</strong></h3><p>An institution builds and operates its own validator nodes. It controls the infrastructure, manages the keys, handles software updates, and monitors performance directly. This model gives maximum control and governance participation, but it carries the full operational burden. The institution must maintain the specialised engineering capability, 24/7 monitoring, incident response processes, and protocol expertise required to operate validators safely at scale.</p><p>Rather than hiring experts, provisioning hardware or cloud infrastructure, and securing forensic-grade security, institutions using a managed service can get their staking strategy up and running in weeks or less. The inverse is equally true: institutions that choose self-operation must be prepared to build all of that capability in-house.</p><h3 id="delegated-validator-infrastructure-staking-as-a-service"><strong>Delegated validator infrastructure (staking-as-a-service)</strong></h3><p>An institution delegates its capital to a professional validator operator. The institution retains custody of its assets at all times. The provider operates the infrastructure, manages keys, monitors performance, handles upgrades, and delivers reporting. This is the dominant model for institutional participation, as it removes the operational burden while preserving custody control.</p><p>The critical requirement in any delegated arrangement is non-custody. In a correctly structured staking-as-a-service model, the validator provider never holds the institution's assets. Assets are not transferred. Delegation happens at the protocol level, and the institution retains withdrawal authority.</p><h2 id="the-technical-components-of-institutional-grade-infrastructure">The Technical Components of Institutional-Grade Infrastructure</h2><p>Not all validator infrastructure is equivalent. The gap between consumer-grade and institutional-grade validator operations shows up across five technical dimensions.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/2026/05/_p2p-validator-infrastructure-stack-institutional.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="A four-layer vertical diagram showing the institutional validator infrastructure stack: Protocol Layer at the base, followed by Infrastructure Layer, Key Management Layer, and Reporting Layer at the top, each labelled with its primary function." loading="lazy" width="2000" height="1304" srcset="https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/size/w600/2026/05/_p2p-validator-infrastructure-stack-institutional.jpg 600w, https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/size/w1000/2026/05/_p2p-validator-infrastructure-stack-institutional.jpg 1000w, https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/size/w1600/2026/05/_p2p-validator-infrastructure-stack-institutional.jpg 1600w, https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/2026/05/_p2p-validator-infrastructure-stack-institutional.jpg 2240w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"><figcaption><i><em class="italic" style="white-space: pre-wrap;">The institutional validator infrastructure stack. Four layers from protocol to reporting, showing how each layer contributes to uptime, security, and compliance.</em></i></figcaption></figure><h3 id="hardware-and-network-architecture"><strong>Hardware and network architecture</strong></h3><p>Institutional validators operate on dedicated hardware rather than shared cloud infrastructure, with redundant power, connectivity, and compute. Professional validators target near-perfect uptime backed by strict SLAs. They utilise low-latency bare-metal hardware, high-throughput connectivity, and optimised client diversity to prevent network-wide bugs from causing local outages. Geographic distribution across multiple data centres reduces single-point-of-failure risk. Active/passive failover mechanisms ensure consensus participation continues through hardware or connectivity incidents.</p><h3 id="key-management-architecture"><strong>Key management architecture</strong></h3><p>Validator keys are the most sensitive operational asset in a staking program. There are two key types relevant to institutional operations: the signing key, used to participate in consensus, and the withdrawal key, used to access staked capital and rewards.</p><p>In an institutional non-custodial arrangement, the institution retains the withdrawal key at all times. The validator operator manages the signing key through a key management system designed to prevent the signing key from being exposed, duplicated, or used in ways that would trigger double-signing penalties. Hardware security modules, remote signing services, and key sharding approaches are all architectural choices at this layer.</p><h3 id="client-diversity"><strong>Client diversity</strong></h3><p>Every proof-of-stake network runs on consensus client software. On Ethereum, multiple independent client implementations exist, including Prysm, Lighthouse, Teku, Nimbus, and Lodestar on the consensus layer. The risk of running a single client in concentration is significant. The Prysm outage in December 2025, where validator participation dropped to approximately 75% and 248 blocks were missed, vividly demonstrated the risk posed by stakers herding toward a single consensus client.</p><p>Institutional-grade providers operate diversified client environments. If one client has a bug or outage, validators running alternative clients continue participating normally. This is a meaningful differentiator that does not appear in uptime statistics measured under normal conditions.</p><h3 id="monitoring-and-incident-response"><strong>Monitoring and incident response</strong></h3><p>Validator infrastructure requires continuous monitoring: block proposal success rates, attestation participation, peer connectivity, signing latency, and software version currency. Institutional-grade operations maintain 24/7 monitoring with defined escalation paths and incident response procedures. To avoid slashing, validators must operate secure, redundant, and highly available infrastructure. This includes implementing slashing protection mechanisms such as remote signing, key sharding, or sentry node architectures, and continuously monitoring node health, block production, and consensus participation metrics.</p><h3 id="reporting-and-audit-infrastructure"><strong>Reporting and audit infrastructure</strong></h3><p>Institutions need validator-level reward attribution for accounting, tax reporting, and audit purposes. This requires a reporting layer that captures rewards at the epoch level, attributes them to specific delegations, and delivers data in formats compatible with institutional back-office systems. Performance data, slashing history, and governance participation records all require structured capture. This layer is frequently underspecified in evaluations focused on uptime and fee rates.</p><h2 id="what-dvt-changes-about-validator-risk-architecture">What DVT Changes About Validator Risk Architecture</h2><p>Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) is a protocol-level mechanism that distributes the validator signing function across multiple independent nodes. Rather than a single node holding and using the signing key, DVT allows a threshold of nodes to collectively produce validator signatures. No single node has access to the complete key.</p><p>For institutional operations, DVT addresses two risk categories simultaneously. First, it eliminates single-point-of-failure at the signing layer. A hardware failure, network outage, or compromise of a single node does not disable the validator or expose the signing key. Second, it structurally prevents double-signing, since generating a duplicate signature requires a threshold of nodes to act simultaneously, which does not occur under normal failure conditions.</p><p>DVT is not yet universally deployed across all proof-of-stake networks, but its adoption is accelerating on Ethereum and represents a meaningful infrastructure maturity signal when evaluating providers.</p><h2 id="reward-mechanics-at-the-infrastructure-layer">Reward Mechanics at the Infrastructure Layer</h2><p>Protocol rewards are generated by the network, not by the validator provider. What the infrastructure layer controls is how efficiently those rewards are captured.</p><p>On Ethereum, rewards come from two sources: consensus layer rewards (base staking rewards for correct block proposals and attestations) and execution layer rewards (priority fees and MEV). Base ETH staking rewards generally range from 3% to 4%, while restaking incentives can temporarily lift combined yields above 8% to 15% (Source: <a href="https://coinlaw.io/cryptocurrency-staking-statistics/?ref=p2p.org">CoinLaw</a>).</p><p>Infrastructure quality affects reward capture in measurable ways. A validator with sustained 99.9% uptime captures consensus rewards on nearly every eligible slot. A validator with 98% uptime misses roughly 1 in 50 attestation opportunities. At scale, that difference compounds into material reward outcomes across a staking program.</p><p>MEV capture is a separate infrastructure consideration. Validators connected to MEV relays receive a share of transaction ordering value from block builders. Institutional operators must evaluate the MEV relay landscape for compliance implications, since certain relay types may route transactions in ways that conflict with regulatory obligations around transaction ordering.</p><p>Network conditions determine protocol-generated rewards and are variable. <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> does not control or set reward rates.</p><h2 id="the-institutional-standard-certifications-audits-and-compliance-requirements">The Institutional Standard: Certifications, Audits, and Compliance Requirements</h2><p>For institutions operating under regulatory obligations, independent validation of validator infrastructure controls matters.</p><p>SOC 2 Type II is the most relevant independent security attestation for validator infrastructure providers. Enterprise clients typically want Type II reports because they demonstrate how controls perform in real operations, not just at a point in time. A SOC 2 Type II report covering availability and security criteria provides meaningful independent assurance that the controls governing validator uptime and key management are operating as documented. It is a floor, not a ceiling, but it is a meaningful one. <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> achieved SOC 2 Type II certification in December 2025, independently validating our operational controls across security and availability criteria (Source: <a href="https://p2p.org/economy/validator-due-diligence-framework-what-institutions-really-need-to-evaluate/">P2P.org</a>).</p><p>ISO 27001 certification for information security management systems is a second relevant attestation, particularly for institutions operating under MiCA in Europe or with data governance obligations. Penetration testing records, incident disclosure history, and governance participation policies round out the compliance picture.</p><p>Institutional adoption of crypto risk frameworks has climbed to 78%, with custodial spend reaching $16 billion in 2025. Risk compliance ranks as the top priority for 84% of institutions. <a href="https://coinlaw.io/bitcoin-staking-statistics/?ref=p2p.org">CoinLaw</a> Validator infrastructure sits at the centre of that risk framework for any institution running a staking program.</p><h2 id="how-to-evaluate-validator-infrastructure-a-due-diligence-framework">How to Evaluate Validator Infrastructure: A Due Diligence Framework</h2><p>For a complete evaluation process, including the specific questions to ask and the mechanisms to assess, see our Validator Playbook article: <a href="https://p2p.org/economy/validator-due-diligence-framework-what-institutions-really-need-to-evaluate/">Validator Due Diligence: An Institutional Framework</a>.</p><p>The criteria below are the foundational dimensions any institutional evaluation must cover.</p><h3 id="infrastructure-architecture"><strong>Infrastructure architecture</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] Does the provider operate dedicated hardware or shared cloud infrastructure?</li><li>[ ] Are data centres geographically distributed with documented failover?</li><li>[ ] What is the provider's SLA for validator uptime, and what is the documented track record?</li></ul><h3 id="key-management"><strong>Key management</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] How are signing keys managed? Remote signing, HSM, or key sharding?</li><li>[ ] Does the institution retain withdrawal key control at all times?</li><li>[ ] What is the key recovery process in the event of a provider incident?</li></ul><h3 id="client-diversity-1"><strong>Client diversity</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] Does the provider run multiple consensus clients across its validator fleet?</li><li>[ ] What is the distribution across client types, and how is this documented?</li><li>[ ] How does the provider respond to client-specific bugs or vulnerabilities?</li></ul><h3 id="slashing-risk-controls"><strong>Slashing risk controls</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] What slashing protection mechanisms are in place?</li><li>[ ] What is the provider's slashing history across all networks they operate on?</li><li>[ ] Is there a documented incident response process specific to slashing conditions?</li></ul><h3 id="reporting-and-compliance"><strong>Reporting and compliance</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] Can the provider deliver validator-level reward attribution at the epoch level?</li><li>[ ] Are reports available in formats compatible with institutional accounting systems?</li><li>[ ] Does the provider hold SOC 2 Type II or equivalent independent certification?</li></ul><h3 id="network-coverage-and-governance"><strong>Network coverage and governance</strong></h3><ul><li>[ ] Which proof-of-stake networks does the provider support?</li><li>[ ] How does the provider handle protocol governance participation on behalf of delegators?</li><li>[ ] What is the process for network upgrades and client version management?</li></ul><h2 id="where-p2porg-sits-in-this-architecture">Where <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> Sits in This Architecture</h2><p><a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> operates non-custodial validator infrastructure across more than 40 proof-of-stake networks, supporting custodians, funds, ETF issuers, and treasury teams with institutional-grade staking programs. Our infrastructure operates on dedicated hardware with geographic distribution, client diversity across consensus implementations, and SOC 2 Type II certification achieved in December 2025.</p><p>Institutions retain full custody of their assets throughout. Validator-level reward reporting is available for accounting and audit requirements. Governance participation policies are configurable per delegation.</p><p>Explore our infrastructure and supported networks at <a href="https://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">p2p.org</a>.</p><p>Building an institutional staking program? <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> provides non-custodial validator infrastructure across 40+ proof-of-stake networks, with validator-level reporting and operational safeguards designed for institutional requirements. <a href="https://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">Explore P2P.org Staking Infrastructure</a></p><h2 id="key-takeaway">Key Takeaway</h2><p>Validator infrastructure is the operational foundation of every institutional staking program. It determines uptime, slashing exposure, reward capture, reporting capability, and compliance posture. The decision of which infrastructure to operate or delegate to is a risk management decision, not a cost decision.</p><p>The institutions that will operate effective staking programs at scale are those that evaluate validator infrastructure with the same rigour they apply to any other mission-critical operational dependency. The checklist above is a starting point. The standard is set by the protocol and by the expectations of the risk committees, custodians, and regulators that govern institutional capital.</p><p>Network conditions determine protocol-generated rewards and are variable. <a href="http://p2p.org/?ref=p2p.org">P2P.org</a> does not control or set reward rates. Slashing risks are protocol-defined and client-borne. Operational safeguards are implemented to reduce slashing exposure but do not eliminate protocol-level risk.</p><h2 id="frequently-asked-questions">Frequently Asked Questions</h2><h3 id="what-is-validator-infrastructure-in-proof-of-stake-networks"><strong>What is validator infrastructure in proof-of-stake networks?</strong></h3><p>Validator infrastructure is the technical stack that enables participation in proof-of-stake consensus. It includes the hardware or cloud architecture the validator software runs on, the key management system that controls signing credentials, the monitoring and incident response stack, the consensus client software, and the reporting layer that captures performance and reward data. Validator infrastructure determines uptime, slashing exposure, reward capture, and compliance posture for any staking program.</p><h3 id="what-is-the-difference-between-self-operated-and-delegated-validator-infrastructure"><strong>What is the difference between self-operated and delegated validator infrastructure?</strong></h3><p>In a self-operated model, the institution builds and runs its own validator nodes, retaining full control but carrying the full operational burden, including specialised engineering, 24/7 monitoring, and protocol expertise. In a delegated model (staking-as-a-service), a professional validator provider operates the infrastructure while the institution retains custody of its assets at all times. The delegation happens at the protocol level, and the institution retains withdrawal authority. Most institutional participants use the delegated model.</p><h3 id="what-makes-validator-infrastructure-institutional-grade"><strong>What makes validator infrastructure institutional-grade?</strong></h3><p>Institutional-grade validator infrastructure operates on dedicated hardware with geographic redundancy, runs diversified consensus clients to avoid single-client failure risk, manages signing keys through hardware security modules or remote signing services, maintains 24/7 monitoring with documented incident response procedures, holds independent certifications such as SOC 2 Type II, and delivers validator-level reward reporting compatible with institutional accounting and audit requirements.</p><h3 id="what-is-distributed-validator-technology-and-why-does-it-matter-for-institutions"><strong>What is Distributed Validator Technology, and why does it matter for institutions?</strong></h3><p>DVT distributes the validator signing function across multiple independent nodes. No single node holds the complete signing key. A threshold of nodes must act together to produce a valid signature. This eliminates single-point-of-failure at the signing layer and structurally prevents double-signing, since triggering that condition requires a threshold of nodes to act simultaneously under failure conditions. For institutions, DVT is a meaningful risk reduction mechanism at the key management layer.</p><h3 id="how-do-validator-infrastructure-decisions-affect-reward-outcomes"><strong>How do validator infrastructure decisions affect reward outcomes?</strong></h3><p>Protocol rewards are determined by the network, not by the provider. However, infrastructure quality determines how efficiently rewards are captured. A validator with sustained 99.9% uptime captures consensus rewards on nearly every eligible slot. A validator with 98% uptime misses approximately 1 in 50 attestation opportunities. At the institutional scale, that gap compounds into material reward differences over time. MEV relay selection is a separate infrastructure consideration with both performance and compliance implications.</p><h3 id="what-certifications-should-institutions-look-for-in-a-validator-provider"><strong>What certifications should institutions look for in a validator provider?</strong></h3><p>SOC 2 Type II is the most relevant independent certification for validator infrastructure, as it validates how operational controls perform over time rather than at a single point in time. ISO 27001 is relevant for information security management, particularly under MiCA in Europe. Institutions should also request penetration testing records, incident disclosure history, and documentation of governance participation policies as part of their due diligence process.</p><h3 id="what-is-non-custodial-staking-and-why-is-it-required-for-institutional-programs"><strong>What is non-custodial staking, and why is it required for institutional programs?</strong></h3><p>In non-custodial staking, the institution's assets remain under the institution's control throughout the staking process. The validator provider operates infrastructure but never holds the assets. Withdrawal keys remain with the institution. In custodial staking, assets are transferred to the provider or a third-party custodian, which triggers additional regulatory obligations in most institutional compliance frameworks. Non-custodial architecture is the standard requirement for institutional staking programs because it preserves custody integrity and avoids the regulatory implications of asset transfer.</p><hr><p><strong><em>Disclaimer</em></strong></p><p>This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, compliance, or investment advice. Regulatory obligations may vary depending on jurisdiction and specific business activities. Readers should consult their own legal and compliance advisors regarding applicable requirements.</p>

<p><strong>TL;DR:</strong><br>BitMart has launched staking products for ETH, SOL, and DOT, powered by P2P.org infrastructure. Users can now stake three of the largest proof-of-stake assets directly within their BitMart account. The integration runs on P2P.org's Unified Staking API — one connection covering multi-asset staking operations across all three networks simultaneously.</p><p>Staking has been one of the more fragmented corners of the exchange product stack. Offering it across multiple networks means dealing with different consensus mechanisms, different validator economics, different operational requirements per asset. ETH, SOL, and DOT are not interchangeable — each has its own architecture and its own edge cases.</p><p>BitMart launched all three at once.&nbsp;</p><p>That outcome is a direct function of how the integration was built.</p><h2 id="the-infrastructure-side-p2porgs-unified-staking-api"><strong>The Infrastructure Side: P2P.org's Unified Staking API</strong></h2><p>The technical foundation of this integration is P2P.org's Unified Staking API.</p><p>One connection covers ETH, SOL, and DOT — stake, unstake, sign, and retrieve data through a single endpoint. That's why BitMart was able to launch all three networks at once rather than phasing them in one at a time.</p><p>The API is built for exactly this use case. Exchanges and custodians connecting to it get access to P2P.org's validator infrastructure across multiple proof-of-stake networks without maintaining separate staking connections per asset. New networks follow the same standard, so expanding coverage doesn't require starting from scratch each time.</p><p>On the operational side, P2P.org runs the validators. The infrastructure is the same that serves regulated custodians and asset managers on the institutional side — $10B+ in staked assets, 190+ institutional clients, active across 40+ networks.</p><h2 id="why-eth-sol-and-dot"><strong>Why ETH, SOL, and DOT</strong></h2><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/2026/04/1600x900--1--2.png" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="1600" height="900" srcset="https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/size/w600/2026/04/1600x900--1--2.png 600w, https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/size/w1000/2026/04/1600x900--1--2.png 1000w, https://p2p.org/economy/content/images/2026/04/1600x900--1--2.png 1600w" sizes="(min-width: 720px) 720px"></figure><p>The asset selection reflects where staking demand is deepest. Ethereum is the largest proof-of-stake network by value staked globally. Solana has one of the most active retail staking ecosystems, with short reward cycles and straightforward delegation mechanics. provides protocol-level rewards to participants — P2P.org's position as an established DOT nominator matters here in a way it doesn't on simpler networks.</p><p>Together, these three assets cover the range of what exchange users are most likely to want to stake. BitMart's global user base — concentrated across Asia, Europe, and emerging markets — maps well to demand for all three.</p><h2 id="what-this-enables"><strong>What This Enables</strong></h2><p>BitMart's launch is a concrete example of what multi-network staking looks like when the infrastructure layer is already built. One API integration, three networks live simultaneously, validator operations handled by a provider with institutional-grade infrastructure behind it.</p><p>For BitMart users, the result is straightforward: staking rewards on three major PoS networks, accessible directly within the platform they already use to trade.</p><p><strong>Exchanges and custodians interested in adding staking to their product can learn more about P2P.org's Unified Staking API at</strong><a href="https://p2p.org/products/api?ref=p2p.org"><strong> </strong></a><a href="http://p2p.org/products/api?ref=p2p.org"><strong><u>p2p.org/products/api</u></strong></a><strong>.</strong></p><p>Disclaimer: Staking services may not be available in all jurisdictions. Staking rewards are variable and depend on network conditions. Digital assets involve risk, including possible loss of principal. BitMart does not provide investment, legal, or tax advice.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>FAQ&nbsp;</strong></p><p>Q: What is BitMart staking powered by? A: BitMart's ETH, SOL, and DOT staking products are powered by P2P.org, a non-custodial staking infrastructure provider with $10B+ in assets staked across 40+ networks.</p><p>Q: Which assets can I stake on BitMart with P2P.org? A: BitMart currently supports staking for ETH (Ethereum), SOL (Solana), and DOT (Polkadot) via the P2P.org integration.</p><p>Q: How does P2P.org's Unified Staking API work? A: The Unified Staking API gives exchanges and custodians access to P2P.org's staking infrastructure across multiple proof-of-stake networks through a single integration. Stake, unstake, sign, and retrieve data through one endpoint — covering multiple networks without a separate build per asset.</p>