Vision Bank vs staking
Both target on-chain-adjacent yield, but they earn it in very different ways.
Key risk difference: Staking pays yield in the underlying token — you keep the token's full price risk. Vision Bank targets a yield decoupled from any single token's price, but with active-trading risks that staking does not carry.
Side-by-side comparison
| Attribute | Vision Bank programme | Staking |
|---|---|---|
| Return source | Trading yield across strategies | Protocol issuance + fees |
| Price exposure | Managed (often delta-neutral) | Full exposure to staked asset |
| Typical monthly yield | Target ~6.5%–9.7% (variable) | Roughly 0.3%–0.7% depending on chain |
| Slashing / protocol risk | N/A | Yes, on validator misbehaviour |
| Unstaking delay | Cycle-based windows | Chain-specific unbonding period |
| Custody model | Institutional custody | Self-custody or delegated |
Why some investors choose Vision Bank
Higher target yield, no single-token price dependency, no protocol slashing risk.
Why some stay with staking
Staking is native to the protocol you already hold and requires no third-party trading operation to earn its yield.