Jupiter Lend's Risk Model Under Scrutiny
A public dispute has erupted in Solana’s lending sector after Jupiter executive Kash Dhanda acknowledged that social media posts claiming Jupiter Lend’s vaults carried “zero risk of contagion” were inaccurate. The posts were deleted, but not before complaints emerged that Jupiter had overstated how its risk architecture works.
“The vaults are actually isolated,” Dhanda said in a video posted to X, while also confirming that Jupiter Lend uses rehypothecated assets. He added, “There was a social media post that came out in which we said that there was zero risk of contagion... That was not a hundred percent correct. We deleted it to avoid it kind of going any further. In hindsight we should have issued a correction right when we deleted it.”
The controversy intensified after Kamino, a major Solana lending protocol, blocked Jupiter’s migration tool. Kamino co-founder Marius Ciubotariu accused Jupiter of misleading users about the meaning of “isolated vaults,” stating that any vault that rehypothecates collateral cannot be described that way.
Investor Takeaway: Scrutiny Over DeFi Risk Descriptions
The dispute highlights growing scrutiny over how DeFi platforms describe risk, especially when vaults share liquidity or rehypothecate collateral. Messaging mistakes now carry real competitive consequences.
Defining "Isolated" in Jupiter Lend's Architecture
The disagreement turns on two definitions. Jupiter and Fluid (the protocol powering its backend) argue that each vault is configured with its own caps, liquidation thresholds, and penalties, which they describe as a form of isolation. Fluid co-founder Samyak Jain said Jupiter Lend’s vaults are “isolated in a sense that each vault has its own configs, caps, liquidation threshold, liquidation penalty, etc.” He also confirmed that Jupiter Lend employs rehypothecation for capital efficiency.
Ciubotariu rejected that explanation, writing on X: “In Jupiter Lend, if you supply SOL and borrow USDC, your SOL gets lent out to loopers... You take all the risk of those loops or assets blowing up. There is no isolation here and full cross contamination.” He added in a direct message to The Block that calling such a configuration “isolated risk” is “an absurd abuse of the term.”
An industry insider who asked not to be named echoed the criticism: “It’s very unacceptable to claim and market isolated vaults when in fact assets are being rehypothecated. That’s a very serious violation of trust.”
Jupiter's Response and Future Outlook
Dhanda pushed back on claims that Jupiter Lend lacks structure, while acknowledging the presence of rehypothecation. “It is true that there is rehypothecation. If there is an asset that's supplied somewhere, it can be borrowed out of debt somewhere else,” he said. “This is where the yield on the collateral actually comes from.”
He maintained that Jupiter’s lending product handled stress well, pointing to the October 10 market crash, during which he said Jupiter Lend recorded “zero bad debt.” Ciubotariu dismissed the comparison: “Their platform was live for 1 month, there were barely any positions at risk... [Jupiter Lend has] to go through years of battle testing to claim anything close to the word 'safe'.”
Kamino has indicated it may restore Jupiter’s migration access if Jupiter “would need to stop misleading to their users and the entire Solana ecosystem, and make the migration tool 2-way.”
Investor Takeaway: Rehypothecation as a Flashpoint
Rehypothecation is becoming a flashpoint in Solana’s lending sector. As TVL climbs, platforms face pressure to describe risks plainly—or risk backlash from peers and users.
Impact on Solana's Lending Competition
Jupiter Lend launched in August with loan-to-value ratios up to 90%, backed by what Dhanda described at the time as a “bespoke liquidation engine.” The protocol advertises “dynamic limits to isolate risk,” though the current debate shows the interpretation of that phrase remains contested.
Despite the dispute, Jupiter Lend’s growth has been rapid. Total value locked now stands above $1 billion, according to DefiLlama, putting it in direct competition with Kamino, which controls more than 60% of Solana’s lending market. That scale has amplified questions about how Jupiter communicates vault behavior and whether its design aligns with user expectations.