Im aint against about staking but this article would give you some view on why these staking coins doesnt really need to have that much attention.
https://www.coindesk.com/staking-isnt-just-a-way-to-earn-crypto-money-and-it-shouldnt-be
Topic: The performance of staking coins vs non-staking coins (Read 194 times)
I got an interesting article here that compare both POS and non-staking coins (I think it is POW here?)
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pow-vs-pos-the-debate-defined
Important part:
It seems each have their own advantage and disadvantages. In technical aspect, both have flaws, it was stated on the quoted message above, that is why others tried hybrid where they implement both POW and POS.
When it comes to market price, it all ends on the number of the creation of the new coins and the set maximum supply. So it does not matter whether it is a staking or non-staking coins because they both continuously produce new coins until they reached their supply cap.
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pow-vs-pos-the-debate-defined
Important part:
Quote
The problem with Proof of Work
Given the heavy utilization of computational resources involved in mining, PoW is considered to be costly, wasteful and inefficient. Having thousands of miners working on just one solution each time is an excessive use of resources, especially as the only block that has any value thereafter is the one that is solved. With each new block being mined, therefore, there’s a heap of effectively useless bi-product. And it’s costly. In fact, one study has equated the power consumption of Bitcoin mining to Ireland’s average electricity consumption. And that doesn’t include all the newer cryptocurrencies that utilize some form of PoW algorithm.
The hardware used in the mining process, moreover, is usually an advanced and expensive piece of proprietary equipment. Take Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) as an example, which have been designed to exclusively mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Most of the research and development of ASICs currently originates in China, a country where electricity is also comparatively cheap. So, given that Chinese ASICs manufacturers have considerable incentives to simply mine bitcoins for themselves – and indeed do so – this has led to an estimated 60-70% of Bitcoin’s total hashing power congregating in China. As such, the problem of excessive centralization of power emerges – something that is antithetical to the founding tenets of blockchain.
Given the heavy utilization of computational resources involved in mining, PoW is considered to be costly, wasteful and inefficient. Having thousands of miners working on just one solution each time is an excessive use of resources, especially as the only block that has any value thereafter is the one that is solved. With each new block being mined, therefore, there’s a heap of effectively useless bi-product. And it’s costly. In fact, one study has equated the power consumption of Bitcoin mining to Ireland’s average electricity consumption. And that doesn’t include all the newer cryptocurrencies that utilize some form of PoW algorithm.
The hardware used in the mining process, moreover, is usually an advanced and expensive piece of proprietary equipment. Take Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) as an example, which have been designed to exclusively mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Most of the research and development of ASICs currently originates in China, a country where electricity is also comparatively cheap. So, given that Chinese ASICs manufacturers have considerable incentives to simply mine bitcoins for themselves – and indeed do so – this has led to an estimated 60-70% of Bitcoin’s total hashing power congregating in China. As such, the problem of excessive centralization of power emerges – something that is antithetical to the founding tenets of blockchain.
Quote
The problem with Proof of Stake
One of the most cited issues with Proof-of-Stake is known as the “Nothing-at-stake” problem. Under PoW blockchains, there is an incentive to keep on mining the longest chain on the ledger, as this chain will be considered the primary version of the truth and the one that earns the miners their rewards; so miners are clearly incentivized to mine only that chain.
But with PoS, there is little to prevent a miner from mining on numerous PoS chains, especially given the fact that there is negligible computational expense to the miner under this algorithm. Hypothetically speaking, a bad actor PoS miner operating on various chains could make it difficult for the network to reach consensus, and could attempt to rewrite history.
This problem is particularly pertinent when a fork in the chain transpires (as happened with Ethereum, which then produced Ethereum Classic); in such a situation, validators using PoS could place stakes on both blockchains which makes it easier to alter the truth in their favor and earn profit. Indeed, partially as a way to solve this problem, Ethereum is in the process of making the transition from PoW to a new consensus strategy called Casper, which will employ a PoS algorithm. The move is intended to make the processing of new blocks onto the chain significantly more efficient, while Casper will also punish those who attempt to stake on two different chains.
One of the most cited issues with Proof-of-Stake is known as the “Nothing-at-stake” problem. Under PoW blockchains, there is an incentive to keep on mining the longest chain on the ledger, as this chain will be considered the primary version of the truth and the one that earns the miners their rewards; so miners are clearly incentivized to mine only that chain.
But with PoS, there is little to prevent a miner from mining on numerous PoS chains, especially given the fact that there is negligible computational expense to the miner under this algorithm. Hypothetically speaking, a bad actor PoS miner operating on various chains could make it difficult for the network to reach consensus, and could attempt to rewrite history.
This problem is particularly pertinent when a fork in the chain transpires (as happened with Ethereum, which then produced Ethereum Classic); in such a situation, validators using PoS could place stakes on both blockchains which makes it easier to alter the truth in their favor and earn profit. Indeed, partially as a way to solve this problem, Ethereum is in the process of making the transition from PoW to a new consensus strategy called Casper, which will employ a PoS algorithm. The move is intended to make the processing of new blocks onto the chain significantly more efficient, while Casper will also punish those who attempt to stake on two different chains.
It seems each have their own advantage and disadvantages. In technical aspect, both have flaws, it was stated on the quoted message above, that is why others tried hybrid where they implement both POW and POS.
When it comes to market price, it all ends on the number of the creation of the new coins and the set maximum supply. So it does not matter whether it is a staking or non-staking coins because they both continuously produce new coins until they reached their supply cap.
Staking your coins is nice, and some of the POS coins performs better than POW, since there is an incentive to hold it (monetary incentive)
Now if you look at a project like Blocknet, you'll get 30% staking rewards (based on blocks) and 70% on masternodes. In which case the masternodes will yield a better return on investment. This is smart, since masternode holders will not likely dump their coins, since they get paid a decent amount of profits to run it.
Blocknet being a "Service-Node" yields extra income from Blocknet's decentralized trading platform, so long term Blocknet will be a great performer - Only reason it's sitting at the price it is, is because: Product first => Marketing.
Do your own research ofc
Now if you look at a project like Blocknet, you'll get 30% staking rewards (based on blocks) and 70% on masternodes. In which case the masternodes will yield a better return on investment. This is smart, since masternode holders will not likely dump their coins, since they get paid a decent amount of profits to run it.
Blocknet being a "Service-Node" yields extra income from Blocknet's decentralized trading platform, so long term Blocknet will be a great performer - Only reason it's sitting at the price it is, is because: Product first => Marketing.
Do your own research ofc
Sure POS is pretty similar with POW, but rewards in mining are much higher, if take DASH for example, you can earn 6,5 DASH per year while staking 1000 DASH coins. But if you mine them and have access to the latest miner equipment and cheap electricity, you can gain much better incomes.
I prefer staking to non-staking principally because PoS is a more sustainable mechanism than PoW.
PoW is fine for small coins, but as crypto evolves and chains become longer and demand becomes higher, we start to see coins with power requirements not dissimilar to small countries. PoW can't be the answer long-term, and is also an obstacle to mainstream adoption as we see increasing focus on green policies and environmental impacts.
So I don't think price performance is the most important difference between staking and non-staking.
PoW is fine for small coins, but as crypto evolves and chains become longer and demand becomes higher, we start to see coins with power requirements not dissimilar to small countries. PoW can't be the answer long-term, and is also an obstacle to mainstream adoption as we see increasing focus on green policies and environmental impacts.
So I don't think price performance is the most important difference between staking and non-staking.
PoW might not be the answer for the long-term if we are looking at it based on our current consumption but do not forget the benefit of a coin in using PoW as their consensus. In terms of security, PoW is more secure compared to PoS. I believe there will be a time when we can reduce consumption, it is very crucial for us to enhance our technology and system.
and I have seen projects got dumped in a single month of time because of inflation, for a few weeks. It works fine and the price might be going up continuously, but after period of time the dump is happening and it is very hard. Shattering the project and the investors to pieces.
Do you think that the performance of staking coins is generally better than non-staking coins?
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
For me, staking coins are only for those risk takers. Buy and sell is a tough thing to do right now since BTC is failing and everything else is going down with it. I prefer the non staking coins at this moment. The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
It's probably so, specially if the coin is fundamentally strong. It's because a large part of the supply is being held in wallets to get the short term and long term benefits, and so there won't be a huge sell pressure in the orderbooks.
Do you think that the performance of staking coins is generally better than non-staking coins?
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
The issue with Staking tokens is that initially the market react to the news and price do went up but has more and more tokens are being locked, the reward shrank and people do realize it doesn't make sense to stake again and causes selling price. I am still looking forward to how Ethereum will implement their own Staking program on their new platform
It depends on the coin really. Staking is really great when it's a coin where the demand outpaces the supply coming in. I've seen some older high staking coins that still relatively hold their value because the demand is there. Then, I've seen other coins where the price is tanked from people selling their stakes within the first month. Some coins like Magi, I really like because I can turn on my Raspberry pi to mine a very small amount and then those amounts will stake into even more amounts for practically nothing. But, staking is not something that I have to have for when I look for a coin to invest in.
Do you think that the performance of staking coins is generally better than non-staking coins?
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
No. It still ultimately comes down to the project itself and what value it brings.
If the inflation rate generated through staking outpaces growth in demand for the coin, then theoretically the value of the coin would decline regardless of its emission mechanism because of the sheer amount of coins that can be generated by just holding capital and doing no PoW.
It's not fair to generalise coins' performance into staking and non-staking, I think. BTC is non-staking, yet it has outpaced the majority of alts in terms of growth through this bull wave.
I prefer staking to non-staking principally because PoS is a more sustainable mechanism than PoW.
PoW is fine for small coins, but as crypto evolves and chains become longer and demand becomes higher, we start to see coins with power requirements not dissimilar to small countries. PoW can't be the answer long-term, and is also an obstacle to mainstream adoption as we see increasing focus on green policies and environmental impacts.
So I don't think price performance is the most important difference between staking and non-staking.
PoW is fine for small coins, but as crypto evolves and chains become longer and demand becomes higher, we start to see coins with power requirements not dissimilar to small countries. PoW can't be the answer long-term, and is also an obstacle to mainstream adoption as we see increasing focus on green policies and environmental impacts.
So I don't think price performance is the most important difference between staking and non-staking.
Generally, if we are talking from an economic perspective. Staking coins are doing better in generating wealth because it depends on total coin you have and it does not mean any more resource other than a computer. On the other hand, non-staking coin requires a ton of resources to run it and generating the reward. But most of non-staking coin generate less than the resources that it needs. But from a technical perspective, non-staking coins are doing better in protecting the system because the miner is working as a validator and checking the system which will prevent a problem happening. Both of them have their own advantage and disadvantage.
I often reflect on this question: is staking a positive factor. I think rather yes, if inflation is not very big.
On the one hand, in any case, there will be pressure of new coins on the price. But on the other hand, I know that many people like to save and they like that their number of coins is increasing.
I remember in an interview a representative of either coinbase or another large similar trading platform said that they now have an increased demand for staking coins. Also, some exchanges began to develop this direction: polo (atom), huobi (there are generally a lot of coins - see huobi pool or wallet), binance (a lot), etc.
Therefore, I think staking is promising.
On the one hand, in any case, there will be pressure of new coins on the price. But on the other hand, I know that many people like to save and they like that their number of coins is increasing.
I remember in an interview a representative of either coinbase or another large similar trading platform said that they now have an increased demand for staking coins. Also, some exchanges began to develop this direction: polo (atom), huobi (there are generally a lot of coins - see huobi pool or wallet), binance (a lot), etc.
Therefore, I think staking is promising.
It's normal to see those popular staking coins and people who are into it to add more. Because the rewards will be higher and it's likely to be the same as receiving dividends but technically speaking they are on whole different level.
It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
Yes, and most of the comments that I've read before says that 'the rich getting richer' for staking coins. And one most awaiting moment is with ethereum's shift from PoW to PoS. 
I think yes but it's not always true, we must think back again when the performance of coin depends on the development of the coin itself. I can say that we must see how or at least create a comparison between non-staking and staking coin. But for me non-staking coins have better utility usage compared with staking coin and for me, this more valuable compared with the usefulness of staking coin.
Do you think that the performance of staking coins is generally better than non-staking coins?
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
The reasoning is that people learn how to stake and they bring in additional coins by doing this. Some they sell but they realize they need to have enough to bring in the stakes.
Then the difficulty of getting stakes can go up, so it's not like the coins are flooding the market if the percentage is good. It's like mining but only needing some of your computer power per wallet.
One average computer can run 5 or more wallets constantly staking if that's all the computer does.
Jump to: