# \[RFC\] Staking of BAL for Economic and Governance Benefits

**URL:** https://forum.balancer.fi/t/rfc-staking-of-bal-for-economic-and-governance-benefits/2004
**Category:** General Proposal
**Created:** [June 29, 2021, 7:59am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/rfc-staking-of-bal-for-economic-and-governance-benefits/2004 "2021-06-29T07:59:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Andrea81](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/andrea81/32/1894_2.png) [@Andrea81](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/Andrea81)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2021, 11:32am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/rfc-staking-of-bal-for-economic-and-governance-benefits/2004/4 "2021-06-29T11:32:04Z")

</div>

Hello @StefanoBury_LongHash,

What a proposal!

my observations are:

1- Curve is not Balancer: they don’t have CRV pools. Their token is just a governance token so liquidity is not a real issue. Pickle, Curve, MStable, AAVE have all similar staking mechanisms because they have a similar protocol structure however AMM like Balancer need their token as a liquidity vehicle and fee generator.  
How do you plan to solve this issue?

2- Nevertheless, I generally believe that 4 years locking period is way too far into the future. Curve says this is working great for them, but how many liquidity providers dump their tokens just because are intimidated by this?

3- Voting with the vBAL won’t solve the problem of large wallet holders having still too much voting power. I made a post about this yesterday. Please find it [here](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/observations-on-the-current-state-of-balancer/1994).

Looking forward to your kind reply.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/rfc-staking-of-bal-for-economic-and-governance-benefits/2004)._