Is the era of staking ETFs coming? After TRX was approved, how much longer until Ethereum and Solana staking ETFs?

A new fusion is happening — on-chain yields from crypto assets are attempting to be wrapped within the regulated shell of traditional finance.

In late May 2026, U.S. financial regulators officially accepted Canary Capital’s submission of a TRX staking ETF proposal. This may seem like just a pre-approval step for a new ETF, but it touches on a concept that industry insiders have discussed repeatedly yet has yet to materialize: packaging native token staking yields into exchange-traded funds.

If the TRX staking ETF is ultimately approved, it will become the world’s first product to embed on-chain staking yield mechanisms within a regulated ETF structure. This would open the door for Ethereum and Solana staking ETFs as well, and also force regulators to directly address a long-avoided question — are PoS token staking yields securities interest, commodity dividends, or a completely new form of asset rights?

Evolution of Staking ETFs: From Ethereum’s Obstacles to Tron’s Breakthrough

Staking ETFs are not a new concept in 2026. Their evolution has almost paralleled Ethereum’s shift from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake.

In September 2022, Ethereum completed the merge, officially entering the PoS era. ETH holders could earn annualized yields through staking, giving it some characteristics of “interest-earning assets.” Traditional finance quickly sensed an opportunity. Starting in 2023, multiple issuers submitted applications for Ethereum spot ETFs, some attempting to incorporate staking yields into their product structures.

But regulatory feedback was not optimistic. In 2024, the U.S. SEC approved several Ethereum spot ETFs, with one condition being that issuers must remove any staking-related terms. The Ethereum ETFs that finally listed were all “non-staking versions,” with holders unable to earn any on-chain yields. This outcome was interpreted at the time as regulators harboring deep concerns about the security nature of staking yields, unlikely to approve them in the near term.

Solana’s situation was clearer yet more challenging. In 2025, spot ETFs for Solana were approved and began trading, but again strictly limited to excluding staking features. Meanwhile, SOL’s on-chain staking yields have long been higher than Ethereum’s, making the “visible but inaccessible” yields the most straightforward opportunity cost for ETF holders versus direct coin ownership.

Just as the market generally believed that staking ETFs were unlikely in the short term, Canary Capital submitted a proposal for a TRX-based staking ETF. Unlike Ethereum and Solana ETFs, which followed a “spot first, then staking” path, this product was designed from the outset with staking yields as a core feature.

In late May 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury officially accepted the review, marking the product’s entry into a substantive regulatory assessment phase. It’s important to note that acceptance does not equal approval; regulators may still require modifications or outright reject it. But merely being “accepted” has already broken through the industry’s previous pessimism about staking ETFs.

Details and Data Perspective on the TRX ETF Structure

To understand this event, it’s necessary to clarify what Canary Capital has actually submitted.

According to publicly available filings, the core structure of this ETF is not complicated: the fund will hold a certain amount of TRX tokens and participate in the Tron network’s staking mechanism, with the staking rewards periodically distributed to ETF shareholders. The management fee rate and yield distribution rules are not yet finalized, but its legal classification has sparked discussion — is it a “commodity-holding, interest-generating ETF,” or an “investment company actively seeking returns”?

This distinction is crucial. If it’s the former, the regulatory framework is relatively mature — similar to gold ETFs holding physical gold and deducting storage costs. If it’s the latter, it would face strict constraints under the Investment Company Act of 1940, significantly increasing compliance costs.

The Tron network’s staking structure also provides unique conditions for this product. Unlike Ethereum’s “validator + delegation” dual-layer staking, Tron’s mechanism separates block rewards from voting rewards. TRX holders can earn yields via “staking to gain energy/bandwidth” or “voting for super representatives,” with yields depending on network parameters and total staked amounts.

As of May 29, 2026, TRX remains a mainstream crypto asset with relatively ample market liquidity. The staking rate on the Tron network is moderate, meaning there is still plenty of staking capacity — unlike networks with over 70% staking rates, TRX ETF building is unlikely to significantly lower the overall network yield due to saturated staking pools. Real-time market data for TRX and other assets can be checked on the Gate platform.

However, it’s important to note that Tron’s developer ecosystem and decentralization level have long been subjects of controversy. The number of decentralized applications and active developers on Tron lag behind Ethereum and Solana by orders of magnitude. Some studies point out that Tron’s validator node distribution is highly concentrated, and the election and replacement of super representatives are not entirely driven by community competition. These features imply that governance risks and transparency issues of the underlying assets could become points of concern for regulators during review.

Market Perspectives and Narrative Dissection

Once the staking TRX ETF entered the regulatory spotlight, various interpretations quickly emerged. Breaking down these voices helps strip away emotion and see the true significance of the event.

Traditional finance tends to see this as a “predictable financial innovation.” In their view, as long as the underlying asset is legal, returning natural yields to holders has precedents in gold ETFs and bond ETFs. An anonymous ETF industry insider summarized: “The question has never been ‘can it be done,’ but ‘who does it first, how, and how will regulators respond?’”

Native crypto communities are more divided. Optimists believe that if TRX gets approved, it will set a “precedent effect,” clarifying the path for Ethereum and Solana staking ETFs. Pessimists argue that the fact that U.S. regulators are willing to accept a Tron-based product indicates they see its market size and influence as limited — “testing the waters with a marginal asset doesn’t mean greenlighting core assets.”

Another important perspective comes from legal experts. Some securities lawyers have pointed out on professional forums that the legal classification of staking yields — whether as “passive interest” or “investment return” — remains ambiguous under current U.S. law. This means that even if the TRX staking ETF is approved, its legal basis might depend on case-by-case discretion rather than a universally applicable rule. “Approval of one product doesn’t mean a green light for an entire category,” this view has gained considerable support among regulators.

Narrative Authenticity: Is the Precedent Effect Overestimated?

Historically, approval of a single product can indeed reshape industry patterns — the 2024 approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs directly spurred a wave of crypto ETF listings, and the 2025 Solana spot ETF provided a pathway for other non-Ethereum chain ETFs. But the case of staking ETFs differs fundamentally.

Bitcoin spot ETFs address issues like “market manipulation” and “custody security,” with well-established regulatory solutions in traditional commodity ETF frameworks. Staking ETFs, however, raise a core legal question: what is the legal nature of PoS staking yields? This question has never been explicitly answered at the federal regulatory level before.

Even if the TRX ETF is approved, its legal reasoning might heavily depend on the specific technical and legal arrangements of the Tron network — for example, if regulators classify TRX staking yields as “dividends similar to stock distributions,” whether Ethereum staking yields would be similarly classified depends on ETH’s technical details and decentralization conditions.

In other words, the “precedent effect” requires two conditions: first, regulatory approval must include broadly applicable legal reasoning; second, subsequent products must be substantively comparable in core structure. Currently, both are hypothetical assumptions, not established facts.

Industry Impact: The Triple Chain of Capital, Network, and Stablecoins

Despite the uncertainty around the “precedent effect,” the push for staking ETFs is already impacting multiple levels of the crypto industry.

At the capital level, the most direct effect is “yield competition.” Investors holding non-staking Ethereum ETFs forego approximately 3–5% annual on-chain staking yields while gaining ETH exposure. If staking ETFs are launched, non-staking versions will face clear disadvantages, pushing issuers to upgrade products or lower fees to stay competitive. This creates a market-driven cycle where regulation prompts innovation.

At the network level, large holdings and staking of tokens via ETFs will inevitably alter the distribution of power on-chain. For Ethereum, if several staking ETFs collectively hold 15–20% of total staked ETH, their custodians could become de facto major validators. The impact on network censorship resistance and governance decentralization is still debated, but it’s a question that regulators will eventually need to address.

An often-overlooked dimension is stablecoins. Tron’s network is currently the world’s largest USDT circulation network, with USDT issuance on Tron consistently ranking first across chains. If TRX staking ETFs boost confidence and capital inflows into Tron, they could indirectly reinforce its dominance in stablecoin transfer markets. This is a secondary effect transmitted via TRX, with a longer chain and some uncertainty, but logically significant.

Risk Analysis: Regulatory, Technical, and Yield Variability

Staking ETF holders face three types of risks that are uncommon or nonexistent in traditional ETFs, which must be clearly articulated rather than glossed over.

Regulatory risk is paramount. The legal classification of PoS staking remains undefined at the federal level. Even if a staking ETF is approved, regulators could revisit its legal basis later or require adjustments. This uncertainty won’t disappear with approval; it could grow as the ETF’s scale expands — tolerable at a few billion dollars, but potentially problematic at hundreds of billions.

Technical risks are also significant. Staking involves validator operation, private key management, slashing mechanisms, etc. Ethereum’s staking carries “slashing” risks — if validators double-sign or violate protocol rules, staked ETH can be deducted. Whether ETF products can effectively manage these on-chain risks and how to disclose them clearly to investors remains unresolved. Tron’s slashing mechanisms differ, but node failures, network congestion, and other risks exist.

Yield volatility is a fundamental concern. On-chain staking yields are not fixed; they fluctuate based on total staked amount, transaction activity, and inflation. On Ethereum, yields have declined from high levels; Solana’s yields are also volatile. Investors expecting future yields based on current rates may experience shrinkage during holding periods. Product issuers must disclose this non-fixed nature clearly, rather than only showcasing current “attractive” numbers.

Conclusion

The emergence of staking ETFs fundamentally addresses a core question: can the native yields of crypto assets enter regulated financial products?

TRX staking ETF’s entry into regulatory review offers new clues, but these are not definitive answers. Moving from a product based on a specific chain to a replicable, scalable regulatory paradigm involves extensive legal argumentation, market testing, and strategic negotiation.

For Ethereum and Solana, the pace of TRX ETF development will serve as an important reference, but should not be seen as “pioneering.” The decentralization level of the underlying network, governance structure, liquidity, and even the communication strategies of issuers and regulators will all influence the likelihood and timing of their respective staking ETFs.

A signal worth watching is: as more traditional financial institutions begin researching staking yields, assessing PoS network risks, and building on-chain operational capabilities, they are essentially accumulating a body of knowledge that was previously exclusive to native crypto players. The diffusion of this knowledge may ultimately define the true arrival of the “staking ETF era” more than any single product approval.