Why is staking on Algorand not as easy or accessible for the average user as it is on Cardano?

[Oscar]

Hello everyone,

I’d like to open this discussion because, although I’ve been using Algorand for a while and I really like its technology, I still see staking as one of the most confusing and least accessible features for the average user. Compared to other networks like Cardano where staking is as simple as delegating from a wallet the process on Algorand is not as straightforward or user-friendly.

1. The user experience is not very intuitive

On Cardano, you simply choose a pool from your wallet and that’s it: the user doesn’t need to manually interact with smart contracts, use external dApps, or take additional risks.

On Algorand, however, the most profitable or flexible staking options often require:

• External dApps,

• Smart contracts,

• Specific wallets such as Pera or Defly,

• And a more advanced understanding of how things work.

For a normal user, this feels more “technical” than necessary.

2. There is no simple, official staking option in the ecosystem

Although there are pools and staking solutions, there is no native delegation system integrated directly into official wallets like Ledger Live, Pera, or the old MyAlgo.

Because of this, many users:

• Don’t know which option to choose,

• Feel the process is complicated,

• Or are afraid of losing funds when interacting with smart contracts.

The lack of a native staking feature makes onboarding harder.

3. The post-2.0 transition added more confusion

Before the 2.0 economic update, Algorand had automatic rewards simply for holding ALGO in a wallet.

When that system was removed, many new and existing users became confused about:

• How to earn rewards now,

• Which methods are official,

• And whether staking still exists at all.

4. Comparison with Cardano

Cardano solved staking with three clear advantages:

• Native delegation at the protocol level,

• Almost zero risk for the user,

• A simple, well-explained process across all wallets.

Algorand could benefit from a similar approach to attract and retain more non-technical users.

5. We need more clarity for the future

It would be very helpful for the ecosystem to have:

• Clearer official documentation,

• A native or more accessible delegation method,

• Integration with major wallets (Ledger Live, Pera, Defly),

• And an effort to standardize staking to reduce confusion and risk.

What do you all think?

Should Algorand implement a simpler and more direct staking model?

Or do you believe the current flexibility is enough for the network?

[simonb]

This page actually quite nicely describes all the different staking options on algorand: Staking Rewards have arrived on Algorand

Before i go into my take on things, i would like to point out that staking rewards in current form are fairly new addition to algorand protocol (less than a year) and every project is integrating it in their own way.

Here is my take on your points:

1.) Not intuitive user experience

• What you are describing here is interracting with dapp through a wallet browser/integration.
  You can do that to an extent via pera wallet browser, i think haystack app is building something liek that also.
• i 100% agree, it should be way easier, like it’s done on CEXes with a single click. You can actually stake algorand on binance and few other CEXes that way, although for lower returns.

2.) No Simple, official staking option:

• Official option is running your own node with 30k+ algo.
• Everything else is you trusting a 3rd party, and weighing your risk/reward. Some make it super easy, some make it harder… Do we need more options - always! To me reti pools and myth dualstake are the best user experience right now and are both super intuitive.

3.) I loved the original algorand automatic rewards, most people i know did too, farily big part of them were actually onboarded to algo because of that in-wallet compounding staking…. That’s never returning so no point thinking about it

4.) Comparison with Cardano:

• There is exactly 0 risk to your algo bag when you stake on your own node or if you use valar solution(obv if you wallet/mnemonics gets compromised that’s another story)
• All other options have smart contract risk, same as with every other blockchain out there.
• I think you are used to how cardano addresses this topic and everything that’s different is learning curve- algo is no exception. Imo it can be all abstracted within wallets (pera/defly)

5.) We need more clarity for the future:

• link at the top is a good start.
• there are also some infographics floating around if someone else finds them and shares that help you determine which option is best for you.

If you end up participating in reti pools consider using cosmic champs one, it has same apr as other pools, below average fee that we take for running it, and we also supplement a bit of extra rewards in our own token on top, to get people interested in our game Link below

Réti Pooling

[Z3PA]

Smart contract stalking

For me ill probably never have 30 k Algo. Meaning ill probably never stalk it. Ill never trust a 3rd party running a smart contract with anything. When ever you see stuff going west in crypto its usually via a smart contract. Id guess there is now and as the price , hopefully , rises itll price out most.

[vidhyanand]

Smart contracts have its own risk and risk appetite changes from person to person. Some people would like to take that risk and some don’t. I respect both school of thoughts.

[aper_nft]

In my opinion, the situation described in the topic seems to stem from the differences in how the Cardano and Algorand chains are designed.
In Cardano, it is common to delegate your stake in the network to node operators, whereas in Algorand, it is assumed that users will stake directly themselves. For this reason, choosing to delegate to someone in Algorand requires an extra step.

I am primarily an Algorand user, but I personally prefer Cardano’s approach to network staking. In Algorand, the operational requirements for participating nodes are low, so users can stake on the network themselves even with a small budget. However, because self-staking is the most profitable option, Algorand users are often reluctant to delegate their stake to someone else and have part of their rewards deducted.

In Cardano, delegation is the norm, so it is culturally accepted that a portion of rewards goes to node operators. This creates an environment where node operators can more easily monetize from the ecosystem, and they are motivated to actively contribute to it to attract users to delegate to them. Additionally, node operators can generate revenue by bringing new participants into the ecosystem and having them delegate, which makes it easier to involve others in the ecosystem.

In Algorand, on the other hand, it is relatively difficult to monetize contributions to the ecosystem, which provides less incentive for users to actively contribute and can make the community less vibrant. That, in my view, is somewhat unfortunate.