The post Analyzing Jup Lend vs. Kamino appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe. Over the past several days, the exchange between Kamino and Jupiter has escalated from healthy competition to a clear public dispute. The events started on Nov. 27, when Jup Lend introduced a refinancing tool on its frontend to migrate looping positions from Kamino Multiply directly into Jup Lend with a single click. The refinance operation initiated an atomic transaction involving four steps: Repay outstanding debt on Kamino. Withdraw the associated collateral. Transfer these assets to Jupiter Lend. Recreate the position inside Jupiter Lend, maintaining the same loan amount and collateral ratio. On Dec. 2, Kamino updated its smart contracts to block Jupiter’s program, preventing one-click refinancing. Both the Jupiter and Fluid teams (Jup Lend uses Fluid in the backend) framed the move as anti-competitive and against “open-finance principles.” On Dec. 6, Kamino’s co-founder publicly explained the rationale for blocking Jup Lend’s migration tool, noting that Jupiter had repeatedly suggested that borrowers’ collateral is isolated, implying it is neither rehypothecated nor exposed to cross-contamination risk. However, this claim was not true, with even Fluid’s co-founder acknowledging rehypothecation within Jup Lend. ​Notably, Kamino never prevented users from repaying their loans manually and withdrawing their capital to Jup Lend. Whether against open-finance principles or not, the move to block the refinancing program was fundamentally a business decision, much like Jup Lend’s decision not to open-source its code (though it has plans to do so). In this regard, it’s interesting to analyze the competitive dynamics between both money markets over the past few months. Since its launch in late August, Jup Lend has grown to $1.6 billion in deposits and $610 million in borrows. The chart below shows that Kamino’s deposits and borrows have decreased by $1.3 billion (-28%) and $460… The post Analyzing Jup Lend vs. Kamino appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe. Over the past several days, the exchange between Kamino and Jupiter has escalated from healthy competition to a clear public dispute. The events started on Nov. 27, when Jup Lend introduced a refinancing tool on its frontend to migrate looping positions from Kamino Multiply directly into Jup Lend with a single click. The refinance operation initiated an atomic transaction involving four steps: Repay outstanding debt on Kamino. Withdraw the associated collateral. Transfer these assets to Jupiter Lend. Recreate the position inside Jupiter Lend, maintaining the same loan amount and collateral ratio. On Dec. 2, Kamino updated its smart contracts to block Jupiter’s program, preventing one-click refinancing. Both the Jupiter and Fluid teams (Jup Lend uses Fluid in the backend) framed the move as anti-competitive and against “open-finance principles.” On Dec. 6, Kamino’s co-founder publicly explained the rationale for blocking Jup Lend’s migration tool, noting that Jupiter had repeatedly suggested that borrowers’ collateral is isolated, implying it is neither rehypothecated nor exposed to cross-contamination risk. However, this claim was not true, with even Fluid’s co-founder acknowledging rehypothecation within Jup Lend. ​Notably, Kamino never prevented users from repaying their loans manually and withdrawing their capital to Jup Lend. Whether against open-finance principles or not, the move to block the refinancing program was fundamentally a business decision, much like Jup Lend’s decision not to open-source its code (though it has plans to do so). In this regard, it’s interesting to analyze the competitive dynamics between both money markets over the past few months. Since its launch in late August, Jup Lend has grown to $1.6 billion in deposits and $610 million in borrows. The chart below shows that Kamino’s deposits and borrows have decreased by $1.3 billion (-28%) and $460…

Analyzing Jup Lend vs. Kamino

2025/12/10 05:14

This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.


Over the past several days, the exchange between Kamino and Jupiter has escalated from healthy competition to a clear public dispute. The events started on Nov. 27, when Jup Lend introduced a refinancing tool on its frontend to migrate looping positions from Kamino Multiply directly into Jup Lend with a single click. The refinance operation initiated an atomic transaction involving four steps:

  1. Repay outstanding debt on Kamino.
  2. Withdraw the associated collateral.
  3. Transfer these assets to Jupiter Lend.
  4. Recreate the position inside Jupiter Lend, maintaining the same loan amount and collateral ratio.

On Dec. 2, Kamino updated its smart contracts to block Jupiter’s program, preventing one-click refinancing. Both the Jupiter and Fluid teams (Jup Lend uses Fluid in the backend) framed the move as anti-competitive and against “open-finance principles.”

On Dec. 6, Kamino’s co-founder publicly explained the rationale for blocking Jup Lend’s migration tool, noting that Jupiter had repeatedly suggested that borrowers’ collateral is isolated, implying it is neither rehypothecated nor exposed to cross-contamination risk. However, this claim was not true, with even Fluid’s co-founder acknowledging rehypothecation within Jup Lend.

​Notably, Kamino never prevented users from repaying their loans manually and withdrawing their capital to Jup Lend. Whether against open-finance principles or not, the move to block the refinancing program was fundamentally a business decision, much like Jup Lend’s decision not to open-source its code (though it has plans to do so). In this regard, it’s interesting to analyze the competitive dynamics between both money markets over the past few months.

Since its launch in late August, Jup Lend has grown to $1.6 billion in deposits and $610 million in borrows. The chart below shows that Kamino’s deposits and borrows have decreased by $1.3 billion (-28%) and $460 million (-26%), respectively, during the same period. 

The top five assets by deposit growth since Jup Lend’s launch are USDC ($485 million), JLP ($225 million), SOL ($206 million), syrupUSDC ($174 million), and jupSOL ($85 million). During the same period, Kamino has seen sizable outflows for all of these assets, except syrupUSDC. However, even for syrupUSDC, Jup Lend still attracted roughly 3x more inflows. 

Kamino’s growth over the past few months has come from assets not yet supported by Jup Lend. In particular, stablecoin inflows in Q4 have been driven by PYUSD ($42 million) and Phantom’s CASH ($125 million). Kamino has also been proactive in onboarding DATCO LSTs; most notably dfdvSOL and more recently fwdSOL.

Kamino’s PRIME integration stands out as a catalyst that can bring net new inflows into the money market. PRIME gives users exposure to a regulated credit pool backed by US real estate loans originated and serviced through Figure. This integration effectively gives access to a source of yield uncorrelated from crypto markets that may attract more institutional borrowers.

Wrapping up, Kamino and Jup Lend are obviously competitors, and competition is healthy as it drives innovation and ultimately benefits users. That said, as Solana Foundation’s Lily Liu noted, instead of fighting with each other, Kamino and Jupiter should focus on growing the pie and capturing market share from other chains and TradFi thereafter. Combined, both money markets still account for less than 10% of Aave’s deposits, and without initiatives like the PRIME integration, it will be impossible to close this gap.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Source: https://blockworks.co/news/jup-lend-vs-kamino

Market Opportunity
Jupiter Logo
Jupiter Price(JUP)
$0.195
$0.195$0.195
+4.89%
USD
Jupiter (JUP) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
SOLANA NETWORK Withstands 6 Tbps DDoS Without Downtime

SOLANA NETWORK Withstands 6 Tbps DDoS Without Downtime

The post SOLANA NETWORK Withstands 6 Tbps DDoS Without Downtime appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In a pivotal week for crypto infrastructure, the Solana network
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 20:44
XRP ETFs pass $1 billion mark with no outflow days since launch

XRP ETFs pass $1 billion mark with no outflow days since launch

Markets Share Share this article
Copy linkX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmail
XRP ETFs pass $1 billion mark with no outflo
Share
Coindesk2025/12/16 19:01