Ethereum has experienced notable underperformance compared to Bitcoin and other digital assets in 2025, yet institutional interest in Ethereum staking is on the rise. Kean Gilbert, head of institutional relations at the Lido Ecosystem Foundation, highlighted that despite Ether's price decline—down 24% year-to-date and 36% over the past six months—demand for Ethereum staking is increasing. This trend is partly driven by institutions seeking custody solutions to facilitate a broader range of investors.

On May 27, Komainu, a regulated digital asset custody provider, began offering custody support for Lido Staked ETH, which represents 27% of all staked Ether. This service targets institutional investors in Dubai and Jersey and provides a compliant method for accessing Ethereum staking yields as more asset managers and family offices explore staking strategies.

Gilbert noted that liquid staking tokens like stETH are appealing to institutions because they mitigate issues related to capital lock-ups and complex custody arrangements. These tokens offer immediate liquidity and compatibility with qualified custodians such as Komainu, Fireblocks, and Copper. As regulatory clarity around Ethereum staking ETFs remains awaited by U.S. exchange-traded fund issuers, the growing use of staked Ether tokens allows both traditional financial institutions and crypto-native firms to gain exposure to Ethereum rewards without long-term capital commitments.

Lido's recent advancements toward institutional adoption include the launch of Lido v3, which features modular smart contracts aimed at helping institutions comply with regulatory requirements. Historically limited access to regulated custodians supporting stETH posed challenges for certain institutions under strict compliance frameworks; however, this barrier appears to be diminishing.

The demand for staked Ethereum has surged significantly recently; on June 12, the amount of Ether staked on the Beacon Chain reached an all-time high of 34.7 million ETH.

Original article

The text presents a plethora of biases, each carefully crafted to shape the reader's perception of the Ethereum staking market. One of the most striking biases is the economic and class-based bias that favors institutional investors and wealthier entities. The text repeatedly highlights the growing interest in Ethereum staking among "institutions seeking custody solutions" and notes that Komainu, a regulated digital asset custody provider, offers custody support for Lido Staked ETH, targeting "institutional investors in Dubai and Jersey." This framing creates an implicit hierarchy, where institutional investors are positioned as more desirable and legitimate stakeholders in the market.

Furthermore, this bias is reinforced by the language used to describe these institutions. Terms like "regulated digital asset custody provider" and "institutional investors" convey a sense of sophistication and legitimacy, while also subtly excluding individual investors or smaller entities. This linguistic choice creates a narrative that prioritizes wealthier stakeholders over others, reinforcing an existing power dynamic.

Another form of bias present in the text is cultural and ideological bias rooted in Western worldviews. The text cites Kean Gilbert, head of institutional relations at the Lido Ecosystem Foundation, as an authority on Ethereum staking. However, there is no mention of any non-Western experts or perspectives on this topic. This omission creates a narrative that assumes Western expertise is superior or more relevant to understanding Ethereum staking.

Additionally, structural and institutional bias are evident in the text's discussion of regulatory frameworks. The article notes that regulatory clarity around Ethereum staking ETFs remains awaited by U.S. exchange-traded fund issuers but fails to critically evaluate these frameworks or question their legitimacy. Instead, it presents them as neutral or even beneficial for institutions seeking to invest in Ethereum staking.

The use of emotionally charged language also reveals linguistic and semantic bias. Phrases like "notable underperformance," "price decline," and "capital lock-ups" create a sense of urgency and risk associated with investing in Ethereum staking outside of traditional financial channels. This framing aims to reassure readers that investing through institutions is safer than exploring alternative options.

Selection and omission bias are also apparent throughout the text. For instance, there is no mention of potential drawbacks or risks associated with using liquid staking tokens like stETH or participating in Ethereum staking more broadly. Instead, these topics are presented as unproblematic solutions for institutions seeking exposure to Ethereum rewards without long-term capital commitments.

Confirmation bias is evident when Gilbert notes that demand for Ethereum staking is increasing despite Ether's price decline because it mitigates issues related to capital lock-ups and complex custody arrangements." This statement assumes without question that these issues exist solely within traditional financial channels rather than acknowledging potential challenges within institutional investment itself.

Framing and narrative bias are also present throughout the text's story structure. By highlighting Komainu's launch on May 27 as a significant event marking increased adoption among institutional investors while omitting other important developments within this space reinforces an existing power dynamic between traditional finance players versus crypto-native firms creating an uneven playing field favoring those already well-established within mainstream finance circles

Sources cited do not reveal any obvious ideological slant; however credibility should be questioned given lack transparency regarding methodologies used gather data presented throughout article Furthermore temporal biases may exist given focus solely upon recent events surrounding rise popularity amongst certain groups