Whales Pool vs Tonstakers: Which TON Staking to Choose

Staking TON is the basic way to earn passive income on the network, and the ecosystem offers two architecturally distinct routes for retail: a classic nominator pool such as Whales Pool, and liquid staking through Tonstakers with the tsTON receipt token. As of May 2026 both are operational, deliver comparable APYs (~3.5–4.2% net), and differ in UX, liquidity, and the risk profile. This article unpacks the differences and offers a decision tree: “HODL → Whales, active DeFi → Tonstakers.”

Why stake TON at all

In TON, validator nodes secure consensus and earn rewards. Becoming a validator requires locking a large stake (hundreds of thousands of TON). Retail with a modest amount cannot validate directly, so a delegation mechanism via nominator pools is used.

Reasons to delegate:

1. Earn a share of validator rewards (around 3.5–4.2% net APY as of May 2026).
2. Reinforce the network — more delegated TON = more validators = higher security.
3. Use a receipt token (in liquid staking) as DeFi collateral without forfeiting the yield.

Not every case calls for staking: if TON is needed for active trading or the balance is small, stake/unstake fees can eat a meaningful share of annual yield.

Whales Pool: the classic model

Whales Pool is one of the oldest and largest nominator pools on TON. Mechanics:

1. User sends TON to the Whales Pool smart contract.
2. The pool aggregates deposits and routes them to Whales (or partner) validators participating in rounds.
3. After each round (epoch) the validator earns rewards, distributed pro rata.
4. On unstake request, TON is returned in 18–36 hours (depending on epoch timing).

Features:

• No receipt token. Delegated TON is just a contract record; it can’t be used as collateral.
• Pool commission typically 10–25% of validator reward. Already reflected in net APY.
• Minimum deposit — tens of TON (exact value depends on current parameters).
• Auto-compound — rewards reinvested automatically.

Whales Pool’s appeal is simplicity and predictability — close to a “classic bank deposit” in feel, with crypto-specific validator risk.

Tonstakers: liquid staking via tsTON

Tonstakers is the largest liquid staking protocol on TON. Mechanics:

1. User stakes TON via the Tonstakers contract.
2. In return receives tsTON — a receipt token representing a share of the pool.
3. tsTON’s exchange rate vs. TON grows as rewards accrue (not rebasing — value accrual; 1 tsTON is worth more TON over time).
4. To exit, you can either (a) sell tsTON on a DEX at market price, or (b) redeem via contract over the standard unstake period.

The key difference vs. Whales Pool — tsTON is liquid. It can serve as:

• Collateral on EVAA Protocol for stablecoin loans.
• Half of an LP in a tsTON/TON pool (minimal IL given correlation).
• A regular jetton for trading.

That makes Tonstakers convenient for users who want both staking yield and access to capital.

Comparison table

Slashing and validator risk: common to both

Both staking modes share one risk: slashing. If the validator the TON is delegated to breaks consensus rules (offline, double-sign), the network can partially “slash” its stake. Delegators sharing the pool absorb a proportional loss.

Historically slashing events on TON have been rare and relatively mild (compared with, say, Ethereum where penalties can be harsher for critical violations). Whales and Tonstakers both rely on professional validators with long uptime track records — reducing but not eliminating the risk.

i

Handling slashing risk. Split delegation across two independent pools (e.g., Whales and Tonstakers) or across Tonstakers and Bemo/Hipo where relevant. Cuts single-point-of-failure without sacrificing APY.

Smart-contract risk: where it’s higher

Whales Pool risk is bounded by the pool contract — battle-tested over years, base logic is simple (accept deposit, delegate, distribute).

Tonstakers stacks more layers: the stake contract, the tsTON mint/burn contract, the derivative layer for the receipt token, and integrations into DEXes and lending. Each extra layer is a potential failure point.

In the industry overall, liquid staking is relatively young and there were incidents with liquid-staking derivative protocols on Ethereum. On TON in 2024–2026 no serious Tonstakers incidents have surfaced, but the fact stands: attack surface is wider for liquid staking.

Decision tree

Simple logic:

Scenario A — Long-term hold, no capital needs

• Goal: earn APY on TON you intend to hold anyway.
• No active DeFi plans.
• OK with 18–36h exit wait.

Pick: Whales Pool. Simpler, minimal surface, long track record.

Scenario B — Active DeFi user, capital efficiency matters

• Want staking APY plus the option to use TON as collateral.
• OK with slightly higher smart-contract risk.
• Need instant liquidity for portfolio adjustments.

Pick: Tonstakers. tsTON unlocks leverage, LP, and active strategies.

Scenario C — Large amount, balanced risk

• Notional >$50k equivalent.
• Need to spread single-point-of-failure.

Pick: split between Whales Pool and Tonstakers (and optionally Bemo or Hipo as a third leg). Diversifies across contracts and validators.

Scenario D — Very small amount (<100 TON)

• Stake APY on this size is a few TON per year.
• Entry/exit fees eat a sizeable share.

Pick: think twice. Staking may not be worth the friction. Either Tonstakers (1-TON minimum) or just hold.

Alternatives: Bemo, Hipo, others

We focus on Whales Pool vs Tonstakers, but the ecosystem has more players:

• Bemo — another liquid staking with stTON receipt. Functionally close to Tonstakers but with a different validator set. Detailed look — in the dedicated bemo/stTON article.
• Hipo — liquid staking by the STON.fi team, hTON receipt. A fresh product integrated into STON.fi DeFi.
• Bemo + Hipo make sense for further diversification beyond Tonstakers.

For the primary classic-vs-liquid choice, Whales Pool vs Tonstakers is the cleanest comparison.

Tax considerations

Brief note for Russian residents (see the dedicated “TON taxes in Russia” article for detail):

• Whales Pool — rewards accrue in TON. That’s crypto-asset income subject to 3-NDFL declaration.
• Tonstakers — formally income “accrues” via tsTON appreciation; selling or redeeming tsTON creates the tax event.
• The tax base is the same in principle; the recognition moment differs.

For users in the EU and other jurisdictions the situation varies; local rules apply.

What this means for users: a checklist

1. APY gap between Whales Pool and Tonstakers is within 0.5%. Don’t choose on percent alone.
2. The main driver is whether you need tsTON liquidity for DeFi.
3. Split large amounts across two pools to reduce concentration risk.
4. Check pool validator reputation — both use top-tier, but still.
5. Mind the Whales unstake window — don’t stake TON you might need urgently.
6. Liquid staking smart-contract risk is higher — that’s the cost of capital efficiency.

Where the industry is heading

Several directions for 2026–2027:

• Liquid staking competition. Tonstakers, Bemo, Hipo expanding functionality; new entrants likely.
• Restaking narratives. If TON sees an EigenLayer-style protocol (non-trivial architecturally), liquid staking tokens could earn extra yield via actively-validated services.
• Institutional staking. Funds and treasuries will delegate TON through regulated providers, possibly expanding the pool and compressing APY through supply.
• Slashing insurance. Standard step in PoS-ecosystem maturity — coverage products against slashing losses.

Conclusion

Whales Pool and Tonstakers are two competing — not mutually exclusive — ways to stake TON. Whales is a “classic deposit” with no frills: predictable, simple, long track record. Tonstakers is modern liquid staking with tsTON: unlocks DeFi but adds a thin layer of smart-contract risk.

For an average user the reasonable strategy is Tonstakers as the primary tool plus a slice in Whales for diversification. For the most conservative holder — Whales Pool only. For the active DeFi user — Tonstakers in full, with tsTON as a key compositional building block.

The deciding factor is not APY but UX and risk appetite. Both products work — the question is which mix fits you.

→