Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
This past weekend, the two major lending leaders on Solana, Jupiter Lend and Kamino, got into a heated dispute.
- Odaily Note: Defillama data shows that Jupiter and Kamino are currently the two protocols with the highest TVL in the Solana ecosystem.
The Cause of the Incident: The Tweet Deleted by Jupiter
The incident dates back to August of this year, when Jupiter officially emphasized the "risk isolation" feature of its lending product, Jupiter Lend, multiple times during its promotional campaign before the product launch (the related posts have since been deleted), meaning that there would be no risk cross-contamination between different lending pools.
However, the design of Jupiter Lend after its launch does not conform to the risk isolation model commonly understood in the market. In the general perception of the market, a DeFi lending pool that can be called risk-isolated is one that separates the risks of different assets or markets through design mechanisms, preventing a single asset default or a market collapse from affecting the entire lending pool structure. The main characteristics of this structure include:
- Pool Isolation: Different asset types (such as stablecoins, volatile assets, NFT collateral, etc.) are allocated to independent lending pools, each with its own liquidity, debt, and risk parameters.
- Collateral Isolation: Users can only use assets within the same pool as collateral to borrow other assets, cutting off cross-pool risk transmission.
But in fact, Jupiter Lend's design supports re-collateralization (reusing collateral deposited in other parts of the protocol) to improve capital efficiency, which means that the collateral deposited in the vault is not completely isolated from each other. Samyak Jain, co-founder of Jupiter, explained that the lending pools of Jupiter Lend are "in a sense" isolated because each pool has its own configuration, limits, liquidation thresholds, liquidation penalties, etc., and the re-collateralization mechanism is just to better optimize capital utilization.
Although Jupiter has a more detailed explanation in its product documentation compared to its promotional content, objectively speaking, the "risk isolation" mentioned during its early promotion does indeed deviate from the general market understanding and carries a suspicion of misleading.
The Heated Battle: Kamino Launches an Attack
On December 6, Kamino co-founder Marius Ciubotariu took the opportunity to criticize Jupiter Lend and banned the migration tool from Kamino to Jupiter Lend.
Marius stated: "Jupiter Lend repeatedly claims that there is no cross-contamination between assets, which is completely absurd. In fact, if you deposit SOL and borrow USDC in Jupiter Lend, your SOL will be lent to other users who are using JupSOL and INF for circular lending, and you will bear all the risks of these circular lending collapses or asset explosions. There are no isolation measures, and there is complete cross-contamination, which is contrary to the advertising and what people have been told… In both traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi), information about whether collateral is re-collateralized and whether there are contagion risks is crucial and must be clearly disclosed, and no one should make vague explanations about it."
After Kamino's attack, discussions surrounding the product design of Jupiter Lend quickly ignited the community. Some agreed that Jupiter is suspected of false advertising—for example, the CEO of Penis Ventures, 8bitpenis.sol, fumed that Jupiter has been lying to users from the very beginning; others believe that the design model of Jupiter Lend balances safety and efficiency, and Kamino's attack is merely for market competition, with impure motives—for instance, overseas KOL letsgetonchain stated: "The design of Jupiter Lend achieves capital efficiency in a pool model while also possessing certain risk management capabilities of modular lending protocols… Kamino cannot stop people from migrating to better technology."
Under pressure, Jupiter quietly deleted its early posts, but this triggered a larger scale of FUD. Subsequently, Jupiter's Chief Operating Officer Kash Dhanda also came forward to admit that the team's previous claim on social media about Jupiter Lend having "zero contagion risk" was inaccurate, and apologized, stating that a correction should have been issued alongside the deletion of the posts.
Core Conflict: The Definition of "Risk Isolation"
Based on the current opposing attitudes in the community, the fundamental disagreement seems to lie in the different definitions of the term "risk isolation" by different groups.
From the perspective of Jupiter and its supporters, "risk isolation" is not a completely static concept, and there can be some design space within it. Although Jupiter Lend is not the risk isolation model commonly understood, it is also not a completely open capital pool model. While sharing a common liquidity layer that allows re-collateralization, each lending pool can be independently configured, with its own asset limits, liquidation thresholds, and liquidation penalties.
On the other hand, from the perspective of Kamino and its supporters, any allowance for re-collateralization is a complete denial of "risk isolation," and as a project party, they should not deceive users with vague disclosures and false advertising.
Upper-Level Awareness: Some Fan the Flames, Others Mediate
Aside from the disputes between both parties and the community, another noteworthy point in this incident is the attitude of various upper-level stakeholders within the Solana ecosystem.
First, there is the venture capital fund Multicoin, which holds the most significant voice within the Solana ecosystem (seemingly without restraint). As an investor in Kamino, Multicoin partner Tushar Jain directly published a post questioning Jupiter, stating "either foolish or malicious, but either way, it cannot be forgiven"—objectively speaking, his remarks have significantly exacerbated the situation.
Tushar stated: "There are two possible explanations for the controversy surrounding Jupiter Lend. One is that the Jupiter team truly does not understand the meaning of isolated collateral. The handling of collateral is the most important risk parameter in a lending protocol. If they do not even understand this core principle of the lending market, what else do they not understand? Can their professional capabilities be trusted to safely deposit funds? It is completely unforgivable for a lending protocol not to understand the meaning of isolated collateral. The other possibility is that the Jupiter team is not incompetent but is deliberately misrepresenting a core part of their protocol to mislead users and attract deposits."
Clearly, Tushar's motives are very clear, aiming to take this opportunity to help Kamino strike at its competitor.
Another important upper-level statement came from the Solana Foundation. As the parent ecosystem, Solana clearly does not want to see the two major seed players within the ecosystem overly opposed, leading to overall internal friction.
Yesterday afternoon, Solana Foundation President Lily Liu posted on X, calling on both projects to reconcile, stating: "Love you both. Overall, our lending market is currently about $5 billion, while the Ethereum ecosystem is about ten times that size. As for the traditional financial collateral market, it is countless times larger than this number. We can choose to attack each other, but we can also choose to look further—first, let's work together to capture a share of the entire crypto market, and then jointly march into the vast world of traditional finance.
To summarize—Stop fighting, or Ethereum will benefit!
Underlying Logic: The Battle for Dominance in Solana Lending
Considering the data development and market environment of Jupiter Lend and Kamino, this incident, although sudden, seems to be an inevitable collision that was only a matter of time.
On one hand, Kamino (in red in the chart below) has long held the position of the leading lending platform in the Solana ecosystem, but Jupiter Lend (in blue in the chart below) has captured a significant market share since its launch, becoming the only entity currently capable of challenging the former.
On the other hand, since the major market crash on October 11, market liquidity has tightened significantly, and the overall TVL of the Solana ecosystem has continued to decline; coupled with the collapse of several related projects, the DeFi market has become extremely sensitive to "safety."
When the market environment was good and incremental funds were sufficient, Jupiter Lend and Kamino were relatively harmonious, as there was still profit to be made, and it seemed that they would only continue to earn more… But as the market shifted to a competition for existing resources, the competitive relationship between the two parties became more tense, and safety issues happened to be the most effective point of attack—despite the fact that Jupiter Lend has not historically experienced any security failures, the mere suspicion in its design is enough to raise user vigilance.
Perhaps from Kamino's perspective, now is the perfect opportunity to deal a heavy blow to its opponent.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
