A common concern around liquid staking is that liquid staking tokens are bad for validators. The fear is that stake pools centralize power, funneling delegations toward a small number of large operators and weakening Solana’s decentralization.
This concern sounds reasonable on the surface, but it does not reflect how liquid staking actually works on Solana. In reality, liquid staking has increased staking participation, expanded delegation, and strengthened the economics for validators across the network.
To dive deeper, let’s explore how stake pools are designed and how stake actually flows through Solana’s validator ecosystem.
Understanding The Concern
The concern that LSTs harm validators usually comes from a fear of stake concentration, not a real loss of user choice. On Solana, users are still choosing where their stake goes. They choose which liquid staking token to use, and each LST represents a different approach to validator selection and delegation.
Some worry that large stake pools could concentrate stake and give too much influence to a small number of operators. The fear is not that users lose control, but that network power could become uneven if too much stake flows through a single source.
This concern is understandable in theory. However, it misunderstands how Solana’s stake pool design works in practice and how delegation actually behaves at scale.
How Solana’s Stake Pool Design Supports Validators
Solana stake pools are built to distribute stake, not concentrate it. Instead of routing delegations to a single validator, stake pools spread SOL across many validators according to transparent onchain rules. This creates a more balanced network where performance and reliability are rewarded with greater stake.
Because stake pools must follow programmatic delegation logic, no single operator can arbitrarily dominate how stake is assigned. Validators compete based on uptime, performance, and consistency, which gives smaller or newer validators a real path to attracting stake that they might not reach through direct delegation alone.
Rather than weakening the validator ecosystem, liquid staking increases the surface area of opportunity. It gives validators access to stake from users who want liquidity without removing competitive pressure from the network.
The Economic Alignment Between LSTs and Validators
Liquid staking grows the total amount of SOL that participates in securing the network. More participation means more stake flowing toward validators and more consistent rewards for those who perform well. Validators benefit directly from this growth because their role becomes more valuable as more capital relies on their performance.
Stake pools tend to direct stake toward validators that demonstrate reliability over time. This creates a feedback loop where strong operators attract more delegation, improve their infrastructure, and deliver better performance. The result is a healthier and more competitive validator set.
LSTs do not reduce validator revenue. They expand the addressable market for staking by making it more attractive to users who would otherwise leave their SOL idle. In doing so, they strengthen validator economics rather than undermine them.
A Stronger Network Through Shared Growth
The idea that liquid staking tokens are bad for validators does not hold up in practice. On Solana, LSTs have increased staking participation, expanded validator access, and reinforced competition based on performance.
Stake pools do not weaken the network. They make it more resilient by spreading stake more broadly and predictably, and validators benefit from this structure through greater exposure to delegations and more consistent economic incentives.
Ultimately, liquid staking does not take power away from validators. It gives them a larger, more active network to secure and a stronger foundation to build on.