Solana stakingGross rate, measured
4.71%
Median of every payment the chain made
Staking
Solana staking
What delegating actually paid, recovered from the rewards the chain issued rather than modelled from an inflation rate. Solana is the one chain measured here where that is possible: it publishes what every validator was paid, every epoch.
What the chain is paying
epoch 1020 · 1 epoch observed
Gross rate, protocol
—
Needs total supply, which this endpoint will not serve
Total staked
433.44MSOL
Share of supply unavailable
Cluster slots skipped
0.05%
Assigned slots that produced no block
The two gross rates are computed from inputs that share nothing. One is the median of every payment the chain actually made; the other is inflation multiplied by supply and divided by total stake. They agree, and that agreement is what makes either publishable — a single unexplained number would be worth no more here than it is anywhere else.
Rates are annualised at 182.6 epochs a year, from Solana’s 400 ms target slot time. No full epoch has been observed end to end yet; once one has, the measured length replaces the target. Real epochs run slightly longer, so this figure is if anything a little generous.
How the set is actually paid
751 validators
A single network rate says almost nothing about what a delegation pays, because the set it averages over is not shaped like a bell. These are the three distributions the headline hides.
What a delegation earns
Net annual return after commission, in whole per cent. The lowest column holds two different things — validators that pay a little, and validators that take the whole reward — so it is labelled rather than coloured.
36
4
3
666
01234
net APR, %
What validators charge
Commission is bimodal, not spread: most validators sit at one end or the other, so the average commission describes almost nobody.
263
336
31
34
2
3
82
01–56–91011–5051–99100
commission, %
Where the stake sits
Cumulative share of stake against validator count. Delegating to a validator already near the top of this curve is what makes it steeper.
validators, cumulative
Every validator
6-epoch window
Ordered by what a delegation would have earned, after commission. A validator’s advertised rate is not what it pays: the two things that separate them are the commission they take and the share of their assigned slots they actually produce.
How to read a rate
- Measured— Recovered from a payment the chain made to this validator
- Derived— The cohort's measured rate with this validator's commission and block production applied
- Pays nothing— Commission of 100%: every reward is taken before the delegator sees it
| # | Validator | Net APR | Commission | Stake | Score | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 701 | 3iSQtPgkZB…38bKsE | 4.18% | 10% | 799K | 58.8 | Degraded |
| 702 | 3iQqh65Gby…y1c9dF | 4.47%derived | 5% | 213 | — | Insufficient data |
| 703 | 3DaPk6TdeG…gYK8BV | 4.71%derived | 0% | 97K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 704 | 3DaifGfDES…uggHVe | 4.71%derived | 0% | 34K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 705 | 3cZSHGfNda…NR5pgA | 4.47% | 5% | 636K | 79.0 | Good |
| 706 | 3CKKAoVi94…kSUofX | 4.71%derived | 0% | 81K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 707 | 3BoZ4AF2t7…7U6fjV | — | 100% | 1 | — | Insufficient data |
| 708 | 3BeharBd3j…dXYSNw | 4.52%derived | 5% | 107K | 83.5 | Good |
| 709 | 3B2mGaZoFw…1XWynU | 4.53% | 2% | 190K | 84.7 | Good |
| 710 | 38zm5bBgDa…juTq8W | 4.71%derived | 0% | 121K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 711 | 32ke3uf1qL…ien3zm | 4.38%derived | 7% | 429K | 71.2 | Degraded |
| 712 | 2zykwzzo1p…TVd5Tq | 4.71%derived | 0% | 109K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 713 | 2XmhZKHmfj…9mo82C | 4.47%derived | 5% | 98K | 79.4 | Good |
| 714 | 2X7WoaXX9K…jWRthz | 4.71%derived | 0% | 151K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 715 | 2X5yarNUWG…2J1to1 | 4.53% | 4% | 520K | 84.9 | Good |
| 716 | 2Wf9V9rPeV…2DuMDc | 4.71%derived | 0% | 627K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 717 | 2VKu11f8zc…6YvYMd | 4.46% | 5% | 113K | 78.5 | Good |
| 718 | 2uxEHizFmm…xjt87m | 4.71%derived | 0% | 92K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 719 | 2UBhtRuyr9…KiRa9H | 4.71%derived | 5% | 112K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 720 | 2T9NfUEDBc…XMnvzR | 4.71%derived | 0% | 184K | — | Insufficient data |
| 721 | 2t53LvZfsk…BaEBhM | 4.47% | 5% | 140K | 79.5 | Good |
| 722 | 2P9ZYA4vBo…gk6jRL | 4.71%derived | 0% | 135K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 723 | 2ooJ5UKSrp…SozdKy | 4.71%derived | 0% | 412 | — | Insufficient data |
| 724 | 2oHUYyW2PU…kxW4ns | 0.00% | 100% | 286K | 0.0 | Poor |
| 725 | 2nhGaJvR17…gRdQot | 4.71%derived | 0% | 56K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 726 | 2N7v8pDKDY…PWTf6Z | 4.37% | 5% | 197K | 70.6 | Degraded |
| 727 | 2Mob8FJkb8…bASitD | 4.47% | 5% | 352K | 79.4 | Good |
| 728 | 2mMGsb5uy1…PaVHHd | 4.00% | 5% | 528K | 58.8 | Degraded |
| 729 | 2mDrrmhSzp…iJDby2 | 4.71%derived | 0% | 274K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 730 | 2m1A2WM1vt…UjoAAb | 0.00% | 100% | 2.01M | 0.0 | Poor |
| 731 | 2Le6TjeEes…BCHUr5 | 4.71%derived | 0% | 20K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 732 | 2jS8AX38m8…SJcWwo | 4.71%derived | 0% | 47K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 733 | 2icWF7Tvxy…qUij1B | 4.71%derived | 0% | 58K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 734 | 2GUnfxZavK…CS1rSx | — | 100% | 2.50M | 0.0 | Poor |
| 735 | 2Gfd4mkMqD…zdaRwe | 4.71%derived | 0% | 208K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 736 | 2gDeeRa3mw…r8uibX | 4.71%derived | 0% | 246K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 737 | 2Eq6YD8P8Q…CoPmQU | 4.47% | 5% | 112K | 79.5 | Good |
| 738 | 2dxz129YxB…ueWZV7 | 0.00% | 100% | 83K | 0.0 | Poor |
| 739 | 2DTXh3ruMU…Qfda3V | 4.71%derived | 0% | 1.01M | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 740 | 2dfgsiSaZ5…Qb8YEC | 4.47% | 5% | 292K | 79.7 | Good |
| 741 | 2Df1aLCRYi…GJfR9E | 4.23% | 10% | 542K | 58.8 | Degraded |
| 742 | 2bpfa8JbFf…PgXd2d | 4.47%derived | 8% | 30K | 79.4 | Good |
| 743 | 2AKKnirWVZ…tPWpbc | 4.47%derived | 5% | 122K | 79.4 | Good |
| 744 | 2abwQG3v2x…jyLeaK | 4.71%derived | 0% | 12K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 745 | 23SUe5fzmL…M4b9Er | 4.47% | 5% | 675K | 79.6 | Good |
| 746 | 22rU5yUmdV…v4bJDU | 0.00% | 100% | 2.32M | 0.0 | Poor |
| 747 | 1Link6hB1N…U8PRDG | 4.71%derived | 5% | 81K | 100.0 | Excellent |
| 748 | 1KXvrkPXwk…K9bsK3 | 4.46% | 5% | 186K | 78.5 | Good |
| 749 | 1i1yPyh843…2KAs2i | 4.50% | 5% | 98K | 82.1 | Good |
| 750 | 1ggyZGbYtE…pnszLT | 4.49% | 5% | 180K | 80.7 | Good |
Take it awayCSV— Solana staking yieldsJSON— Solana staking yieldsevery validator, not only the filtered view
Rates are annualised from completed epochs. A measured rate is recovered from the payment the chain made to the validator's vote account; a derived rate is the cohort's own measured gross rate with this validator's commission and block production applied, used where no payment can be inverted — at zero commission there is nothing to invert.
How a rate is arrived at
Measured
The chain reports what it paid a validator’s vote account, which is that validator’s commission on its delegators’ rewards — not the rewards themselves. Those are paid straight into individual stake accounts and are not reported anywhere.
So the commission is divided back out. A validator charging 7% that was paid 351 SOL earned its delegators 351 ÷ 0.07 × 0.93 between them.
Derived, and why it is needed
Dividing by zero recovers nothing, and roughly half of Solana’s validators charge no commission at all — so for them there is no payment to invert. The same applies where a validator’s stake has changed so much since it was paid that the two figures no longer describe the same moment.
Those rows use the rate the rest of the cohort was measurably paid, with this validator’s own commission and block production applied — and they say so, on every row.
Neither figure includes MEV. Jito tips are distributed outside the protocol’s own reward mechanism and are not visible in what the chain reports here, so a validator running Jito may pay more than this page shows. It is not estimated here. Full methodology