Article Details

Solana Foundation Steps Into Kamino–Jupiter Lend Feud: Risk, Messaging And Governance By X

Solana’s lending ecosystem has spent the past day in a very public argument.

The sequence, in simplified form:

• Concerns surfaced on X about how Jupiter Lend handles collateral and whether its vaults are truly “isolated.”
• Kamino Finance, an established Solana lending and structured‑product protocol, amplified those concerns with detailed threads and diagrams.
• Screenshots circulated of older Jupiter Lend marketing that described some vaults as having “zero contagion risk” and completely isolated exposure.
• Jupiter Lend’s co‑founder, Kash Dhanda, published a video acknowledging that the “zero contagion” wording was inaccurate, while defending the protocol’s rehypothecation‑based design.
• Solana Foundation president Lily Liu posted that Solana’s lending market is roughly 5 billion dollars compared with Ethereum’s 50 billion, warning that public infighting risks damaging user confidence.

Most of the nuance lives in X threads, replies and shared screenshots, rather than in polished blog posts.

The core issue: isolation promises versus rehypothecation

At the heart of the dispute is a tension between how risk is engineered on chain and how it is described in marketing.

Jupiter Lend’s design

Jupiter Lend uses a rehypothecation model:

• Collateral deposited into certain vaults can be reused elsewhere within the protocol.
• This can increase capital efficiency, allowing more borrowing and yield from the same base of collateral.
• However, it also means that failures or extreme stress in one part of the system can, in some scenarios, affect others.

That does not make the design inherently unsafe, but it does mean that risks are more correlated than in a strictly isolated model.

The “zero contagion risk” problem

The controversy arises because some earlier Jupiter Lend posts and diagrams described specific vaults as:

• Completely isolated from the rest of the protocol
• Having “zero contagion risk” from other markets

Kamino and other critics argue that this was misleading, because the rehypothecation model means collateral is, in practice, more interconnected. Dhanda’s video response accepts that the phrase “zero contagion” was inaccurate and should not have been used.

In other words, the argument is not only about the smart‑contract design, but about the gap between technical reality and marketing language.

Kamino’s response: blocking tools and calling for clarity

Kamino’s reaction has had both technical and social dimensions.

On the technical side:

• Kamino blocked Jupiter’s migration tool from interacting with its own protocol, citing concerns that users might be moving from one risk profile to another under inaccurate assumptions.

On the social side:

• Kamino’s founder and team members published detailed X threads outlining why they believe Jupiter’s isolated‑vault messaging was inconsistent with the use of rehypothecation.
• They framed the dispute as a matter of user protection and clear risk disclosure, not just competitive rivalry.

From Kamino’s perspective, allowing migration flows driven by what they see as flawed messaging could expose users to risks they do not fully understand.

Solana Foundation steps in

The dispute escalated enough that Solana Foundation president Lily Liu chose to intervene publicly.

In her X post, she noted that:

• Solana’s total lending market is around 5 billion dollars, roughly one‑tenth the size of Ethereum’s.
• Traditional finance collateral markets are orders of magnitude larger than both.
• Public infighting between major protocols is counterproductive if it undermines user confidence at a relatively early stage of ecosystem growth.

Liu’s message was not to silence criticism, but to:

• Urge both Kamino and Jupiter Lend to clarify risks accurately.
• Encourage them to redirect energy toward expanding Solana’s overall lending market rather than attacking each other.

Her involvement turns what might have been a local protocol spat into a broader governance moment for the Solana ecosystem.

DeFi governance via X: how community pressure works

This episode is a textbook example of how DeFi governance now extends beyond formal token‑holder votes and into real‑time social media dynamics.

Key elements include:

• Public call‑outs: Kamino and independent analysts used threads, diagrams and screenshots to challenge risk messaging.
• Rapid feedback loop: Within hours, Jupiter Lend’s team had to respond with a video and clarifications, acknowledging that earlier language was wrong.
• Foundation mediation: The Solana Foundation did not push a code change or proposal, but it used its soft power and public platform to nudge both sides toward more constructive behaviour.

In this model, risk management and governance are partly enforced by social reputational mechanisms: projects that are perceived as misrepresenting risk can face immediate backlash and scrutiny.

Why this matters for users

For everyday users, the Kamino–Jupiter Lend dispute is a reminder to look beyond headline claims like “isolated” or “zero contagion.”

Important takeaways:

• Read the docs and audits: The actual behaviour of vaults, collateral flows and rehypothecation paths is defined in documentation and code, not just marketing tiles.
• Isolation is rarely absolute: Even in designs that aim for isolation, shared or re‑used collateral, oracle dependencies and liquidation mechanisms can create links between markets.
• Social assurances are not guarantees: A tweet saying “zero contagion risk” does not remove underlying design trade‑offs. When wording is corrected after the fact, it is already too late for users who relied on the original message.

Episodes like this push the ecosystem toward better standards, but they also highlight how much due diligence still falls on individual users.

Implications for Solana’s DeFi credibility

Solana’s lending market is still smaller than Ethereum’s, but it has been growing quickly.

Public disputes between flagship protocols can cut both ways:

• Positive side: Open, technically grounded criticism can improve designs and disclosures, leading to safer products over time.
• Negative side: For newer users and institutions, visible infighting can look like instability, making them hesitant to allocate capital.

Lily Liu’s intervention shows that the foundation is acutely aware of this trade‑off and is willing to use its voice to keep the focus on user trust and market growth.

What to watch next

Over the coming days and weeks, key developments to monitor include:

• How Jupiter Lend updates its documentation, risk disclosures and UI messaging around isolated vaults and rehypothecation.
• Whether Kamino restores access to its migration tools once it is satisfied with those changes.
• Any follow‑up statements or frameworks from the Solana Foundation on best practices for risk communication.
• User behaviour: whether deposits and activity shift materially between Kamino, Jupiter Lend and other Solana lending protocols.

Conclusion

The Kamino–Jupiter Lend dispute, and the Solana Foundation’s decision to step in, underscore a central reality of modern DeFi: risk design happens in code, but risk governance now plays out in public on X.

Arguments over terms like “isolated” and “zero contagion risk” are not semantic games; they determine how users perceive the safety of their deposits. When those terms clash with underlying mechanics like rehypothecation, community pressure and foundation guidance become de facto governance tools.

For Solana, the episode is both a challenge and an opportunity. Handling it well – with clearer disclosures, better education and less zero‑sum infighting – can strengthen user trust in a lending market that still has plenty of room to grow.

The post Solana Foundation Steps Into Kamino–Jupiter Lend Feud: Risk, Messaging And Governance By X appeared first on Crypto Adventure.

Also read: Amazon : les frais de port obligatoires sur les livres sont un fiasco