Do ETFs risk centralizing Solana, and who actually gets the yield?

The introduction of Solana ETFs creates a natural experiment regarding the network's staking culture, where over two-thirds of supply is typically delegated. Non-staking ETFs, like the ChinaAMC Solana ETF, impose a fee drag, effectively lowering the net yield for holders but slightly increasing the APY for remaining on-chain stakers as the staked ratio falls. Conversely, stake-enabled US ETFs (like SSK) pass through a positive carry but introduce centralization risk because custodians choose validators, potentially concentrating consensus power based on compliance infrastructure rather than community choice.

The yield dynamics favor native staking for users who can self-custody, as LSTs offer higher net yields (5-6%) compared to staked ETFs (around 3-5% after fees). This suggests ETFs primarily attract regulated institutions unable to custody directly. The key risk is not that ETFs drain staking, but that if stake-enabled funds dominate, the delegation decisions of a few custodians will structurally skew Solana's validator set toward entities with strong US legal footprints.

Future developments depend on ETF AUM growth, the proportion flowing into staking versus non-staking products, and potential governance changes like SIMD-228, which aimed to adjust inflation based on staking rates. Ultimately, Solana ETFs split the value proposition: non-staking funds offer regulated liquidity without yield, while staked funds offer yield without the composability of liquid staking tokens.

(Source：CryptoSlate)