Abstract
The rapid evolution of decentralized finance (DeFi) has introduced innovative financial services, notably crypto lending and staking. These mechanisms have democratized access to financial products but have also exposed participants to significant risks. This report delves into the operational structures of crypto lending and staking, examines the inherent risks—including smart contract vulnerabilities, counterparty risks, slashing penalties, and re-hypothecation practices—and analyzes historical firm failures such as Celsius, Voyager Digital, and BlockFi. By understanding these elements, the report elucidates the critical need for robust risk management and capital adequacy, informing the UK’s forthcoming regulatory framework aimed at enhancing consumer protection and market integrity.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
1. Introduction
The advent of blockchain technology has paved the way for decentralized financial services, collectively termed DeFi. Among these, crypto lending and staking have emerged as prominent activities, offering users avenues to earn returns on their digital assets. However, the collapse of major firms like Celsius, Voyager Digital, and BlockFi has underscored the vulnerabilities inherent in these operations. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the operational mechanisms, associated risks, and the lessons learned from these failures, highlighting the necessity for stringent regulatory oversight in the UK’s crypto sector.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
2. Operational Mechanisms of Crypto Lending and Staking
2.1 Crypto Lending
Crypto lending involves platforms that facilitate the borrowing and lending of digital assets. Lenders provide their crypto holdings to a platform, which, in turn, loans these assets to borrowers, often in exchange for interest payments. The platform typically acts as an intermediary, assessing borrower creditworthiness and managing the loan terms. This model mirrors traditional lending but operates within the decentralized framework of blockchain technology.
2.2 Crypto Staking
Staking pertains to the process of participating in a proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchain network by locking up a certain amount of cryptocurrency to support network operations such as transaction validation and security. In return, participants receive staking rewards, often in the form of additional tokens. This process not only incentivizes users to hold their assets but also contributes to the overall health and security of the blockchain network.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
3. Inherent Risks in Crypto Lending and Staking
3.1 Smart Contract Risk
Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code. While they offer automation and transparency, they are susceptible to coding errors and vulnerabilities. Exploits in smart contracts can lead to significant financial losses, as malicious actors may manipulate the code to their advantage.
3.2 Counterparty Risk
In crypto lending, counterparty risk arises when borrowers default on their obligations. The lack of traditional credit assessments and regulatory oversight in DeFi platforms exacerbates this risk, potentially leading to substantial losses for lenders.
3.3 Slashing Penalties
In staking, participants may face slashing penalties if they act maliciously or fail to adhere to network protocols. These penalties involve the forfeiture of a portion of the staked assets, serving as a deterrent against dishonest behavior and ensuring network integrity.
3.4 Re-hypothecation
Re-hypothecation occurs when a platform uses the assets pledged by clients for its own purposes, such as lending them to other parties. While this practice can enhance returns, it also increases the risk of loss, as clients may be unaware of the extent to which their assets are being utilized.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
4. Case Studies of Firm Failures
4.1 Celsius Network
Celsius Network, a prominent crypto lending platform, suspended withdrawals in June 2022, citing extreme market conditions. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2022, revealing a significant deficit on its balance sheet. Investigations indicated that Celsius had engaged in high-risk lending practices without adequate risk management frameworks, leading to its downfall.
4.2 Voyager Digital
Voyager Digital, a crypto brokerage firm, filed for bankruptcy in July 2022 after exposure to the collapse of Three Arrows Capital (3AC). The firm had significant lending exposure to 3AC, which defaulted on its obligations, resulting in substantial losses for Voyager and its clients.
4.3 BlockFi
BlockFi, a crypto lending platform, faced liquidity issues following the market downturn in 2022. Despite efforts to secure emergency capital, the firm filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. BlockFi’s exposure to high-risk assets and lack of sufficient capital reserves were pivotal factors in its collapse.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
5. Regulatory Implications in the UK
The failures of these firms have highlighted the need for comprehensive regulatory frameworks in the crypto sector. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has initiated consultations on proposed regulations for crypto assets, focusing on areas such as crypto asset listings, safeguards against market manipulation, and prudential and risk transparency requirements for staking, lending, and borrowing activities. These measures aim to enhance consumer protection, support innovation, and strengthen trust in the sector.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
6. Conclusion
The operational mechanisms of crypto lending and staking offer innovative financial opportunities but are fraught with significant risks. The collapses of firms like Celsius, Voyager Digital, and BlockFi underscore the critical need for robust risk management and capital adequacy. The UK’s proactive approach in developing a regulatory framework for the crypto sector is a commendable step towards mitigating these risks and fostering a secure and transparent environment for all market participants.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
References
-
Reuters. (2025, December 16). British regulator kicks off consultation on new crypto rules. (reuters.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 15). UK regulation of cryptoassets to start in October 2027, finance ministry says. (reuters.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, May 2). Britain to bar consumers from borrowing to buy crypto under new regime. (reuters.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, November 11). Bank of England’s Breeden says diluting stablecoin rules further could damage financial system. (reuters.com)
-
Addleshaw Goddard LLP. (2025, December 14). The long-awaited draft framework for the UK regulatory regime for Cryptoassets. (addleshawgoddard.com)
-
HMRC. (2025, December 14). CRYPTO61110 – Decentralised Finance: Lending and staking: Introduction. (gov.uk)
-
HMRC. (2025, December 14). The taxation of Decentralised Finance involving the lending and staking of cryptoassets – call for evidence. (gov.uk)
-
Forbes. (2024, June 6). The U.K. Is Staking Its Crypto Credentials On DeFi Staking. (forbes.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). UK order clarifies crypto staking is not a collective investment scheme. (cointelegraph.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). UK Eases Restrictions on Crypto Staking with New Legal Amendment. (cryptonews.net)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). UK tax agency cracks down on rules around DeFi lending and staking. (cointelegraph.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). From Emergency Capital Infusions to Bankruptcy: How the Crypto Meltdown Hit These Companies the Hardest. (gadgets360.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). Crypto firms acted like banks, then collapsed like dominoes. (apnews.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). A Retrospective on the Crypto Runs of 2022. (chicagofed.org)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). Cleary Gottlieb | Novel Issues in the Crypto Bankruptcy Cluster. (content.clearygottlieb.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). The rise and fall of centralized crypto lending platforms – Celsius. (techopedia.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). Coinbase: No exposure to collapsed crypto firms Celsius, 3AC, Voyager. (cnbc.com)
-
Reuters. (2025, December 14). BANKRUPTCY UPDATES – Celsius, FTX, Voyager & BlockFi. (youtube.com)
Be the first to comment