My understanding is that usury is the ability to make money solely off of  (sterile) money. No labor or risk involved in the loan or investment. So any interest on loans would be usurious.
An investor who would reap a profit from risk-taking would be in the clear.

Vll tried to "white-wash" the sin by stating that is is only unreasonably high interest that is wrong, but it is really ALL interest that is the sin, and a big one. Obviously it is the person gaining from usury and not the victim that is the sinner.
Loans made with reasonable fees and without interest are ideal. 

Alright thanks. I think the key here is understanding the terms 'sterile' and 'loan' because there are a lot of things in the modern world that make 'interest' that might not be 'sterile' or a 'loan'. But due to the gravity of usury I am trying to get a 100% scope of the meaning.

"Interest" per se is always "sterile".  There are really only three possible justifications.

1) If an individual lends the money out, he's losing out on the use of the money that he could otherwise use for other enterprises that could make him more money.

2) Lender incurs risk.

3) Lender loses money he could make by collecting interest on it himself.

4) Lender incurs some inconvenience.  So, for instances, banks have to put work into processing loans, managing payments, etc.

#3 is circular and falls on those grounds.

#4 would be compensated for by fees, as the amount of work involved is not proportionate to the amount of money loaned.

#2 is a situation where the lender's risk does increase with the amount of the loan.
#1 is the same.  I could for instance start a business with my money.

So #1 and #2 are the only possible justifications for collecting fees that are proportionate to the amount of money loaned.

For #1, if I want to start some business with the money, then I simply wouldn't loan it out in the first place.  This doesn't justify turning the mere lending of money into your "business".

For #2, the way to handle it would be to have the lendee pay lending "insurance" ... this would be based on actuarial tables based not only on default rates but also the assessment of a given individual's risk of default (perhaps a credit score and other criteria).  If the loan were secured, however, there's no risk, well, that's basically what a "secured" loan is.  But there could be some risk depending on whether the asset could depreciate to below what was owed.

This way the fees and insurance are based on the realities mentioned above, with a reasonable profit margin as you would have in any other business to compensate your time, effort.  If I run a loan company, I should be able to draw a reasonable salary for the work I put in to run the company.  But any "profits" above and beyond that definitely fall under the aspect of "usury".

When a Jew provides you with a mortgage, not only does the Jew secure his investment with the collateral of the home (and homes tend to appreciate) AND charge you thousands in "closing fees" and sometimes even make you pay for "mortgage insurance" (generally if you have < 20% equity in the home), but they ALSO make inordinate amounts of money in excess of the home's value.  If you take out a mortgage on a $250,000 home, you'd end up paying about $750,000 by the end of 30 years.  That is gravely sinful usury.  They should be making their salaries from the fees

So a non-usurous home "loan" would entail a few hundred dollars worth of closing costs and fees, a monthly servicing fee (probably no more than $50 per month, since it's nearly all electronic and automated), and a certain amount of mortgage insurance (probably no more than $200, depending on your credit "risk"), along with principle payments.  If the home needed to be foreclosed upon, the home should be sold for market value, and the bank should have only as much stake in the property as would cover the amount of remaining principle, while the mortgagee would receive as much of the principal he paid into it, minus any fees/costs associated with the foreclosure itself.

Similar would apply to any secured loan, like a car loan.

Credit Card issuers would be compensated by merchant fees (not based on a percentage, however, as the work incurred does not increase with the amount charged.  Credit Card users would pay a reasonable monthly fee to make up for the cost of servicing the account and the people that needed to be employed to do it, as well as a reasonable insurance amount proportionate to the balance and the credit worthiness of the individual.

None of these "companies" should be making millions of dollars in "profits" based off of "interest".

Similar rules should apply to all enterprises, where people should draw salaries proportionate to their contribution to the company, and possible also some additional money for R&D, to develop additional products or improve their current ones, have some cushion for times of economic downturn, etc.  But the millions of dollars of profits are simply unjust.  NOBODY is worth millions of dollars per year while people who do the actual work that brings in the money are making non-living wages.

"Interest" per se is always "sterile".  There are really only three possible justifications.

1) If an individual lends the money out, he's losing out on the use of the money that he could otherwise use for other enterprises that could make him more money.

2) Lender incurs risk.

3) Lender loses money he could make by collecting interest on it himself.

4) Lender incurs some inconvenience.  So, for instances, banks have to put work into processing loans, managing payments, etc.

#3 is circular and falls on those grounds.

#4 would be compensated for by fees, as the amount of work involved is not proportionate to the amount of money loaned.

#2 is a situation where the lender's risk does increase with the amount of the loan.
#1 is the same.  I could for instance start a business with my money.

So #1 and #2 are the only possible justifications for collecting fees that are proportionate to the amount of money loaned.

For #1, if I want to start some business with the money, then I simply wouldn't loan it out in the first place.  This doesn't justify turning the mere lending of money into your "business".

For #2, the way to handle it would be to have the lendee pay lending "insurance" ... this would be based on actuarial tables based not only on default rates but also the assessment of a given individual's risk of default (perhaps a credit score and other criteria).  If the loan were secured, however, there's no risk, well, that's basically what a "secured" loan is.  But there could be some risk depending on whether the asset could depreciate to below what was owed.

This way the fees and insurance are based on the realities mentioned above, with a reasonable profit margin as you would have in any other business to compensate your time, effort.  If I run a loan company, I should be able to draw a reasonable salary for the work I put in to run the company.  But any "profits" above and beyond that definitely fall under the aspect of "usury".

When a Jєω provides you with a mortgage, not only does the Jєω secure his investment with the collateral of the home (and homes tend to appreciate) AND charge you thousands in "closing fees" and sometimes even make you pay for "mortgage insurance" (generally if you have < 20% equity in the home), but they ALSO make inordinate amounts of money in excess of the home's value.  If you take out a mortgage on a $250,000 home, you'd end up paying about $750,000 by the end of 30 years.  That is gravely sinful usury.  They should be making their salaries from the fees

So a non-usurous home "loan" would entail a few hundred dollars worth of closing costs and fees, a monthly servicing fee (probably no more than $50 per month, since it's nearly all electronic and automated), and a certain amount of mortgage insurance (probably no more than $200, depending on your credit "risk"), along with principle payments.  If the home needed to be foreclosed upon, the home should be sold for market value, and the bank should have only as much stake in the property as would cover the amount of remaining principle, while the mortgagee would receive as much of the principal he paid into it, minus any fees/costs associated with the foreclosure itself.

Similar would apply to any secured loan, like a car loan.

Credit Card issuers would be compensated by merchant fees (not based on a percentage, however, as the work incurred does not increase with the amount charged.  Credit Card users would pay a reasonable monthly fee to make up for the cost of servicing the account and the people that needed to be employed to do it, as well as a reasonable insurance amount proportionate to the balance and the credit worthiness of the individual.

None of these "companies" should be making millions of dollars in "profits" based off of "interest".

Similar rules should apply to all enterprises, where people should draw salaries proportionate to their contribution to the company, and possible also some additional money for R&D, to develop additional products or improve their current ones, have some cushion for times of economic downturn, etc.  But the millions of dollars of profits are simply unjust.  NOBODY is worth millions of dollars per year while people who do the actual work that brings in the money are making non-living wages.

Thanks for the answer. I haven't done this type of usury so I'm in the clear. Though I am concerned specifically with staking certain cryptocurrencies.

E.g if i stake etherium to help secure the network and get interest that way. From what i understand the interest comes from network fees. I don't think it is usury but it would be foolish of me to assume so without consulting counsel.

This may be helpful.

https://novusordowatch.org/st-alphonsus-liguori-moral-theology-usury/

Thanks but it doesn't address my particular matter. I guess it will depend on whether or not staking eth or whatever token on a node through a smart contract counts as a 'loan' or not.

Money used as "capital", e.g., company stock (which is a sort of loan) or a business loan, is not typically usury.
That's to say, if the money is somehow employed to produce "more", it is not usury.
...From Trent.

From the fifth lateran council. Not sure what "risk" means here, since even lenders take 'risk' when giving out their money (i.e someone could run away with it...)

Also also "a thing which produces nothing", OP does staking ETH produce anything? Does network security count as 'produce'?

That's precisely what risk means, that you could end up losing your money, whether the borrower would steal it or whether he would invest it badly and lose it that way.  That's where I proposed that some kind of borrower's insurance would be the appropriate structure to mitigate that risk.

Some combination of fees to compensate for the servicing of the loan and borrower's insurance in case of default) makes the most sense for "loan" operations, and the companies that service loans would make money for the services they provide in that regard (from the fees).  But when the bank gets "money" from the fed, say, for a mortgage loan, and then charges 2-3 times the value of the actual home over the course of the loan, for doing next to nothing, that's gross usury.  So these Jew bankers who didn't lift a single finger to cut down a tree or hammer in a nail to build the home, they feel entitled to twice as much money as the people who labored to build the home?  It's really disgusting.

Speculation is akin to usury because you're not really doing anything to contribute the actual value of the item.  I buy some options to buy wheat and then the price of wheat goes up, and I sell it for a profit.  Did I do anything to actually earn the money?  I did absolutely nothing to help produce the wheat.

But if you do things like buying a home and selling it later when the price goes up, well, that's a different story ... and it's caused by inflation that's the direct result of this usury system set up the Jєωs.  So, for example, with the recent spike in home prices, my home's value went up by like 25% in a year.  Well, I could have sold to collect the "profit", right?  Well, I still need a home, and so any home that I would try to BUY would also be 25% higher than it was before.  So I'm not really making any "profit" as the cost of home ownership has gone up proportionally.  That's cause by inflation, which is the direct result of the Jєωιѕн usury system.

This re-definition of usury as "excessive" profit is completely incorrect and a cop-out, and it's theologically incorrect, but, practically speaking, it's probably a decent rule of thumb because we have no choice but to operate within this Jєω system.  Because everything is inflating due to the system, it's probably a decent practical rule even if it's caving on the actual theological principle (but we have no choice really).

Given that our system is constantly inflating, if you lend money out at 0% interest, you're actually losing money because of inflation over time.  If inflation for next year is 10% and you've held onto my money at 0% interest for a year, I've actually lost 10% of the value of my money.  So I incur a loss, effectively, by lending the money.  So given the system, I might be justified to ask for 10% interest (due to inflation).  This would not actually be profit, since the 10% is based on the loss I would incur.  But the only reason this is true is that we're stuck in this corrupt usurous system to begin with.  So, in principle, this is usury, but usury begets usury, etc., in a vicious cycle, so in the practical order we have no choice but to participate in this corrupt system until we get God's Great Reset.