Upcoming Change to How Staked Funds Are Managed (Locks → Holds)

Tech Talk
1

As part of ongoing improvements to the staking system, we’re rolling out a small but important runtime change.

:counterclockwise_arrows_button: What’s changing?

We are migrating staking ledgers from using legacy locks to holds. While this is mostly an internal storage change, it will have two visible effects for users:

  1. Balance View:
  • Previously, your staked funds appeared under the “frozen” portion of your system account.
  • After this change, they will appear under the “reserved” section instead.
  • Functionally, your stake remains just as secure and active – only the way it’s displayed changes.
  1. Minimum Balance (ED) Requirement:
  • Previously, users could stake their entire balance down to zero.
  • After this change, you’ll need to keep at least the existential deposit (1 DOT) in your free balance.
  • This ensures your account stays alive. If you were staking your full balance, your active stake will now be reduced by 1 DOT to account for this.

:hammer_and_wrench: Behind the scenes

We’ll be lazily migrating existing staking ledgers, so you don’t need to take any action. The process will be seamless, with no expected disruption to your staking activity.

:red_exclamation_mark:What should you do?

Nothing. If you notice any unusual behaviour related to staking or voting with staked funds, please report it here so we can investigate.

:brain: More details for technical users

For those interested in the technical background or implementation details, you can refer to:

Thanks,

Staking Team at Parity

4 Likes
2

Thanks for the post!

I just wanted to raise a potential point of confusion. Previously, we treated reserved balances—such as those for proxy, identity, social recovery, or index deposits—differently. These couldn’t be reused or have additional locks placed on them. In contrast, staking amounts could have not only staking locks but also other types, like governance locks.

Now that all of these are grouped under the general “reserved” category, the distinction between lockable and non-lockable funds may be less clear, which could lead to some misunderstandings. Just wanted to voice this concern—though I fully understand there are technical reasons behind the migration!

1 Like