Revolut staking: zero commission, and rates you cannot see

Commission is the only part of a staking return that is certain in advance. The network rate moves, the token price moves, inflation moves. The provider's cut is fixed, it is deducted before you see anything, and on the low-yield chains most people actually stake it is the single largest determinant of what you end up with.

Revolut's position on it is unusually blunt. In its own words, it gives users"100% of the staking rewards we receive on-chain" and"doesn't take a cut". The qualification sits inside the phrase "we receive": third-party validators may take up to 3% of gross rewards before they reach Revolut. So the all-in drag is up to 3%, and none of it is Revolut's.

Set that against the rest of the market and it is the most competitive fee structure in this entire comparison set. Set it against what Revolut declines to publish — per-asset APYs, minimums, unstaking periods, all of them visible only inside the app — and the picture is more complicated. This review deals with both halves.

Which earning model is this?

One engine, cleanly. Revolut stakes proof-of-stake assets through third-party validators and passes the network rewards back. There is no lending book, no stablecoin product, no dual-currency instrument dressed up as savings. Nothing here depends on a borrower repaying anything.

That narrowness is a feature. The comparison we make on staking versus savings turns on exactly this point: validator rewards are a protocol-level cash flow funded by token issuance, while savings-style yield is funded by credit. Revolut only offers the first. Whatever else is true of the product, you are not an unsecured creditor of a lending business when you use it.

Revolut states that it holds the staked assets while users keep ownership. That is the standard custodial arrangement, and it carries the standard consequence: in an insolvency, the strength of that "ownership" depends on how client assets were actually segregated, not on the wording of a marketing page.

The commission claim, against the rest of the market

Here is why the claim matters. This table lists every staking commission we were able to verify from a primary or well-sourced secondary reference, from solo staking at the bottom toCoinbase and Uphold at the top.

Rates and the conditions attached

Revolut advertises "up to 22% APY" and is careful about the framing, describing APY as "the expected annualised return based on historical data" and as "indicative only". That caveat is accurate and appropriate. It is also the only thing a prospective user gets, because Revolut publishes no per-asset APYs at all.

Twenty-two per cent is a high number for this asset list. Of the assets Revolut supports, the highest nominal network APR we could verify on 16 September 2026 was Cosmos at 19.42% to 19.64%, against 12.67% inflation — a real yield of about 6.19%. Ethereum was 2.46% to 2.63%, Cardano 2.14%, Polkadot 2.76% to 2.78%, Solana 6.12%, Algorand 4.66%, NEAR 5.14% and Tezos 6.67% — all of them collected in our staking rewards comparison. Nothing on that list reaches 22%. The headline therefore most likely belongs to one of the assets for which no reliable public rate exists, or reflects a period of unusually high issuance. It is not a rate a typical user staking ETH or ADA should expect.

Payouts, lock-up and redemption

Rewards are paid daily or weekly depending on the token. Unstaking periods are token-dependent, shown in-app, and — this is the part worth underlining — nothing accrues while you wait.

The cost of that varies enormously by chain. Cardano and Algorand have no network unbonding at all. Polkadot's has historically been 28 days, though a 2026 tokenomics change is moving it towards roughly 24 to 48 hours. Cosmos is 21 days, Tron 14 days, Avalanche hard-locks for a minimum of 14 days with no early exit. Three weeks of zero accrual on a 19% nominal rate costs more than a 10% commission would. Since Revolut does not publish its per-token periods, a user cannot model that before depositing. We list the network-level figures oncrypto staking.

Availability, licensing and protection

Revolut crypto staking is available in the United Kingdom and the EEA, and not in the United States. POL was added specifically for UK and EEA users. How that compares with the rest of the market is set out in availability by country.

On licensing, precision matters. Revolut holds an EU banking licence obtained through Lithuania. A banking licence is a serious authorisation and it is the reason Revolut's fiat balances in the EU sit inside a deposit guarantee framework. It does not extend to crypto services, which under European law are governed by MiCA and require a separate CASP authorisation. We could not confirm which Revolut entity provides the crypto service or whether that entity holds a CASP licence — a distinction ourregulation guide takes apart.

The practical consequence is simple and should not be softened: crypto held with Revolut is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and it is not covered by any EU deposit guarantee scheme. The fiat in your Revolut account and the ETH in your Revolut account are protected on completely different terms. Only Xapo Bank in our coverage offers a genuine deposit guarantee on any balance, and even there it applies to US dollars and explicitly excludes crypto.

Custody and validator risk

Revolut holds the staked assets and states that users keep ownership. Staking is performed by third-party validators, which introduces two exposures the app cannot remove.

The first is slashing. On chains that implement it, a validator that double-signs or fails badly can lose part of the stake it manages. In practice slashing is rare — fewer than 500 of more than 1.2 million Ethereum validators have ever been slashed — and several chains on Revolut's list, including Cardano, Algorand and NEAR, have no slashing at all. Cosmos does, at up to 5% for double-signing. The larger correlated-penalty scenarios remain theoretical, and we rank them against the risks that have actually cost people money incrypto earn risks.

The second is operator concentration and uptime. A validator that is offline earns nothing, and Revolut does not name the validators it uses. There is no proof-of-reserves attestation covering staked balances.

The risks specific to Revolut

Unverifiable pricing. The commission claim is the product's whole case, and it cannot be audited from outside. A zero take rate on an unpublished APY is a promise about one variable while another stays hidden. We have no reason to doubt the statement; we simply cannot confirm what the gross rate was before it was applied.

Regulatory ambiguity around the crypto arm. Being a licensed bank in one activity and unconfirmed in another is a familiar shape — Bitpandashows the same perimeter problem from the opposite direction, holding a BaFin licence while calling its own stablecoin product unregulated. Readers should not assume a bank's licence covers everything the app sells.

Custodial concentration. Staking, holding and reporting all sit with one firm, with no named validator set and no reserve attestation.

How Revolut compares with two alternatives on this site

Against Bitpanda

Bitpanda runs a broader version of the same staking business and charges an undisclosed commission for it, while adding a stablecoin product Revolut does not have. Bitpanda publishes reward bands, so you get some sense of the rate before signing up; Revolut publishes nothing per-asset but takes nothing. Bitpanda holds a MiCAR licence from BaFin and states its terms with unusual candour. If price is the deciding factor, Revolut wins clearly. If you want to see a rate before depositing, or want assets such as SCRT, CSPR, MINA or STRK, Bitpanda is the better fit.

Against SwissBorg

SwissBorg is the disclosure benchmark: it names the venue behind each strategy, risk-rates it, and publishes yield ranges rather than a single maximum. It also hands the top of those ranges to holders of its own token, so a Standard-tier user can receive a small fraction of the advertised rate, and it does not publish a fee percentage either. Revolut is simpler and cheaper; SwissBorg is more informative about where money goes and offers DeFi and stablecoin routes Revolut has no equivalent to. For plain proof-of-stake exposure, Revolut's arithmetic is hard to argue with.

Our view

Zero commission is the strongest single claim any provider makes in this comparison, and on a chain like Ethereum — where real yield is around 1.66% and a 35% commission would take more than half of it — the difference is not marginal. Revolut has also avoided every structural trap we flag elsewhere: no native-token tiers, no balance taper, no lending book, no discretionary bonus component.

What it has not done is publish the numbers that would let anyone check the result. A rate you can only see after signing up is a rate you cannot compare, and for a site built on verifying figures against their sources that is a real limitation rather than a stylistic quibble. The honest summary is that Revolut is probably the cheapest way to stake inside a regulated consumer app in the UK and EEA, and that "probably" is doing work the company could remove tomorrow by publishing a rate table.

Every provider we track, with the engine behind each headline rate, is on our crypto earn platforms page.