Staking Progression: A Brief Overview
Since its inception in 2018, P2P.org has been at the forefront of secure staking solutions, predominantly within the Ethereum domain. Fast forward to June 2023, their influence extends across over 50 networks, stewarding a remarkable $1.6B in staked assets. With recent refinements to the platform, P2P.org accentuates its elite enterprise staking offering, ensuring effortless integration for custodians, digital wallets, and emerging banks through a refined API. Steadfastly championing non-custodial staking for institutions, P2P.org continually innovates to advance its universal adoption.
The collaboration between P2P.org and SSV Network marks a monumental advancement, signaling the upcoming fusion of SSV distributed validator staking within the P2P.org domain. This alliance promises to ease the staking process for institutions, empowering them to deftly manage their digital asset portfolios using DVT technologies.
Deciphering DVT: The Bridge to Institutional Engagement
The overarching ambition of P2P.org is to furnish institutional investors, their chosen custodians, and B2B wallet providers with a solitary access point to staking-related amenities. Through rigorous interactions with various custodians, self-custody platforms, and wallets, several insights emerged:
- A pronounced inclination towards risk mitigation, highlighting the importance of holistic controls for staking-associated risks, such as counterparty and slashing perils.
- The preference to engage multiple staking vendors based on staker discretion and decentralization factors.
- A diminished preference for managing multifarious integrations with these vendors, underscoring the importance of user-friendly interfaces and integrations.
DVT technology emerges as a promising avenue to tailor an attractive proposition for institutional investors. The imminent SSV integration will endow the P2P.org staking arena with an unparalleled edge, positioning it as a singular integration hub spanning an array of staking services.
Institutional Imperatives: Addressing Key Considerations
For an efficacious institutional staking platform, it’s imperative to consider the operational dynamics of hedge funds, VCs, Family Funds, among others:
- Typically, funds navigate through custody, a B2B wallet, or crypto-accommodating banks.
- These intermediaries, known for their risk-aversion, demand explicit controls over risks, including legal ones.
- Their teams often comprise adept professionals desiring specific MEV relay control and near-real-time monitoring.
With these insights, P2P.org’s envisioned platform will embrace:
- An API-centric design tailored for seamless integration.
- A curated list of node operators: Strategically chosen partners capable of addressing distinct institutional prerequisites.
- Enhanced reporting functions catering to tax reporting and reward management requisites.
- Fee consolidation, keeping in sync with prevailing institutional preferences.
Navigating Payment Complexities
SSV Network’s operational model revolves around SSV tokens for its validator services. In contrast, institutions predominantly follow two fee structures: monthly invoicing and automatic validator fee deductions from staking rewards. P2P.org aims to harmonize this discrepancy, striving to align the SSV tokenomics model with institutional payment predilections.
Operator Vetting: A Criterion-based Approach
Considering the platform’s institutional focus and the unique demands it poses on node operators, P2P.org’s approach will prioritize a vetted list of node operators in the initial phases. The team will lean on their extensive experience to streamline node operator integration, prioritizing:
- Established providers with credible histories in managing substantial stakes.
- A commendable performance trajectory, gauged through tools like rated network.
- Adherence to platform-set SSV fees.
- Pledge to offer a geographically and technically diversified infrastructure.
Over time, P2P.org contemplates expanding its node operator base, embracing a more inclusive approach.
