Once you hold ETH, what else can you do with it?
A few years ago, the answer was almost disappointingly simple: move it to a cold wallet, leave it there, and wait for the next bull market.
But now that Ethereum has transitioned to proof of stake and onchain lending markets have matured, ETH no longer has to sit idle. The two most common options are native staking to earn protocol rewards or depositing ETH as collateral to borrow stablecoins—unlocking liquidity without selling the underlying asset.
At first glance, both approaches put idle ETH to work. But comparing only their APRs obscures their most fundamental difference:
Native staking addresses how long-term holders can earn protocol rewards on assets they intend to hold. Borrowing addresses how holders can unlock liquidity and improve capital efficiency without selling.
They serve two entirely different financial needs.
1. Native Staking: Turning a Long Holding Period Into Productive Capital
Consider the simplest scenario.
Suppose you hold 32 ETH or more and are almost certain you will not need it for the next two or three years. You have already accepted the short-term price volatility. The only remaining variable you can put to work is the time you know you will spend holding it.
That is precisely what native staking does: it turns time into productive capital.
Since Ethereum transitioned to proof of stake, validators have staked ETH to participate in network consensus. They perform duties such as submitting attestations and proposing blocks, receiving rewards according to protocol rules.
These rewards do not come from interest paid by another borrower or from additional tokens distributed by a DeFi protocol. They come from Ethereum’s protocol-level incentives for participants who help secure and operate the network.
For long-term holders, the logic of native staking is therefore straightforward: if the ETH is going to remain untouched anyway, it can participate in securing Ethereum and accumulate additional ETH during that period.
Pectra made this approach even more capital-efficient. (Further reading: “As 8 Million ETH Starts Moving, Is Ethereum Staking Undergoing a Structural Shift?”)
The new 0x02 compounding validator increased the maximum effective balance of a single validator from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH. Rewards above 32 ETH can increase the effective balance in 1 ETH increments and continue generating rewards, giving native staking a more complete compounding mechanism.
Native staking, however, has one clear limitation: it addresses rewards but does not directly provide liquidity.
Once ETH enters the validator system, its primary role is to serve as economic security for the network. New validators must pass through the activation queue, while a full exit may also require waiting, depending on network conditions. Staked ETH therefore cannot be spent, traded, or redeployed as freely as an ordinary wallet balance. (Further reading: “Why Does Native Ethereum Staking Come With a Month-Long Queue?”)
Liquid staking partially addresses this limitation. When users stake through a protocol such as Lido, for example, they receive stETH, which can still be transferred, lent, or used elsewhere in DeFi. From a structural perspective, however, this adds another protocol and token layer on top of native staking.
Abstracted to its core purpose, native staking is best suited to one particular need: making a long-term ETH position productive during the time you already intend to hold it.
2. Borrowing: Unlocking Purchasing Power Without Giving Up Your Position
Borrowing solves a very different problem.
Suppose you remain highly bullish on ETH and have no intention of selling, but suddenly need cash—or a compelling new onchain opportunity appears.
Selling spot ETH would be the simplest option, but it also means surrendering the position. If ETH subsequently enters a major rally, rebuilding that position at a reasonable cost may be difficult.
DeFi lending offers another approach: keep the ETH, deposit it as collateral, and borrow the stablecoins you need through an overcollateralized loan.
On a protocol such as Aave, users can supply eligible assets as collateral and borrow other assets within the applicable loan-to-value limits. The borrowed funds can then be used for payments, investments, or other liquidity needs, while the original ETH remains deposited as collateral.
At this point, ETH is serving a completely different role.
In native staking, ETH is productive capital that earns protocol rewards by participating in network consensus. In lending, it functions more like collateral on a balance sheet, with its primary value lying in the liquidity it allows the holder to access.
Strictly speaking, borrowing does not create free additional yield.
Once users borrow assets, they take on debt and must pay a variable borrowing rate. At the same time, if the price of ETH falls substantially, the position’s Health Factor will decline. Once the position reaches its liquidation threshold, part of the collateral may be sold by the protocol.
Borrowers on Aave must therefore monitor their loan-to-value ratio, Liquidation Threshold, and Health Factor.
If the borrowed stablecoins are used to purchase more ETH, the position goes one step further: what began as liquidity management becomes leverage. If ETH rises, the strategy magnifies returns. If ETH falls, it accelerates the deterioration of the collateral position.
This marks an important risk boundary between borrowing and native staking.
The primary risks of staking involve validator operations, slashing, and delays in exiting or withdrawing staked ETH.
Collateralized borrowing introduces additional risks associated with debt, variable interest rates, market prices, and liquidation.
For long-term holders, borrowing answers a practical question: if you do not want to sell your ETH but need access to funds, can you unlock its liquidity?
Yes—but that liquidity is not free.
3. One Earns From Time; the Other Unlocks Liquidity
Viewed from this perspective, native staking and borrowing are not absolute substitutes. In portfolio management, they are better understood as complementary tools for different needs.
A core position that is unlikely to be sold for several years may naturally fit native staking. It can earn Ethereum protocol rewards without introducing external debt or market-driven liquidation risk.
A more tactical allocation with a clear short-term liquidity requirement—and whose holder is willing to monitor the position—may use borrowing as a buffer that avoids selling spot ETH.
Put simply, when liquidity is not needed, ETH can go to work as productive capital. When liquidity is needed, ETH can serve as collateral. The former improves yield efficiency during a long holding period; the latter improves balance-sheet capital efficiency.
DeFi also offers more aggressive ways to combine the two. A user might convert ETH into stETH, use it as collateral, borrow additional funds, and build a looping position in an attempt to capture both staking rewards and leveraged returns.
But the more tightly a strategy optimizes capital efficiency, the longer its chain of risks and dependencies becomes.
For long-term holders, removing one layer of smart contract risk is often more valuable than adding another two percentage points of projected yield.
In practice, many users avoid native staking not because they reject its economics, but because it seems too complicated.
Running a validator independently remains beyond the practical reach of most users. It requires setting up hardware, configuring clients, protecting against downtime, and handling ongoing maintenance. Those operational demands remain even after Pectra. Yet handing ETH to a centralized exchange for convenience undermines the original purpose of non-custodial staking.
This is the gap that mature wallet products can fill by turning complex validator operations into an accessible service.
With imToken’s non-custodial native staking service, for example, users can create a dedicated validator with at least 32 ETH and choose between a compounding validator using 0x02 withdrawal credentials and an automatic withdrawal mode.
Professional infrastructure providers handle hardware deployment, validator operations, and continuous monitoring, while users retain control of their private keys and the withdrawal address specified in the validator’s Withdrawal Credentials.
In other words, an operational process that was once highly technical and cumbersome is condensed into a native staking experience that remains intuitive and under the user’s control.
Final Thoughts
For long-term ETH holders, this is becoming an increasingly important question.
In the past, the primary decision was whether to continue holding ETH.
As staking, lending, and other onchain financial tools mature, the question becomes: if you intend to hold ETH for the long term, what role should it play?
Should it become a productive long-term asset that continuously earns protocol rewards, or collateral that can unlock liquidity whenever capital is needed?
Answering that question may matter far more than comparing a few percentage points of APR.