温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/vi/62270.html
点击访问原文链接

Solana’s two leading lenders have fallen out, and a foundation has stepped in to mediate. | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
Solana’s two leading lenders have fallen out, and a foundation has stepped in to mediate. | Bee Network Login Tin tức thịnh hành Nền tảng khởi chạy meme Các tác nhân trí tuệ nhân tạo (AI) DeSci TopChainExplorer Dành cho Newbee Tiền xu 100 lần Trò chơi Ong Trang web cần thiết ỨNG DỤNG Phải Có Người nổi tiếng về tiền điện tử DePIN Tân binh cần thiết Máy dò bẫy Công cụ cơ bản Trang web nâng cao Trao đổi Công cụ NFT CHÀO, Đăng xuất Vũ trụ Web3 Trò chơi Ứng dụng phi tập trung (DApp) Tổ ong Nền tảng phát triển QUẢNG CÁO Tìm kiếm Tiếng Anh Nạp xu Đăng nhập Tải xuống Đại học Web3 Trò chơi Ứng dụng phi tập trung (DApp) Tổ ong QUẢNG CÁO trang chủ•Phân tích•Solana’s two leading lenders have fallen out, and a foundation has stepped in to mediate. Solana’s two leading lenders have fallen out, and a foundation has stepped in to mediate.Phân tích3 tháng trước更新Wyatt 17.714 6 Author｜Azuma ( @azuma_eth )

This past weekend, two of Solana’s leading lending platforms, Jupiter Lend and Kamino, clashed.

Odaily Note: According to Defillama data, Jupiter and Kamino are the two protocols with the highest TVL in the current Solana ecosystem. Cause of the incident: Jupiter quietly deleted a tweet. The incident can be traced back to August of this year, when Jupiter officially promoted its lending product Jupiter Lend before its launch, emphasizing multiple times that the product had the characteristic of “risk isolation” (related posts have been deleted), meaning that there would be no cross-contamination of risks between different lending pools.

However, the design of Jupiter Lend after its launch did not conform to the risk isolation model commonly understood in the market. In the general market perception, a DeFi lending pool, which can be considered risk-isolated, is a lending pool structure that uses design mechanisms to separate the risks of different assets or markets, preventing defaults of a single asset or a market crash from affecting the entire protocol. The main characteristics of this structure include:

Pool segregation: Different asset types (such as stablecoins, volatile assets, NFT collateral, etc.) are allocated to independent lending pools, each with independent liquidity, debt, and risk parameters. Collateral segregation: Users can only use assets within the same pool as collateral to borrow other assets, thus cutting off the risk transmission across pools. Tuy nhiên, Jupiter Lend is actually designed to improve capital efficiency through re-collateralization (reusing deposited collateral elsewhere in the protocol), meaning that the collateral deposited into the vault is not completely isolated from each other. Jupiter co-founder Samyak Jain explains that Jupiter Lend’s lending pools are “in a sense” isolated because each pool has its own configuration, caps, liquidation thresholds, liquidation penalties, etc., and the re-collateralization mechanism is simply to better optimize capital utilization efficiency.

Although Jupiter provides a more detailed explanation of the Jupiter Lend in its product documentation than in its promotional materials, objectively speaking, the “risk isolation” mentioned in its early promotional materials does deviate somewhat from the general market understanding and is suspected of being misleading.

Intense Battle Erupts: Kamino Launches Attack On December 6, Kamino co-founder Marius Ciubotariu took this opportunity to criticize Jupiter Lend and blocked Kamino’s migration tool to Jupiter Lend.

Marius stated, “Jupiter Lend’s repeated claims of no cross-contamination between assets are utter nonsense. In reality, on Jupiter Lend, if you deposit SOL and lend out USDC, your SOL will be lent to other users using JupSOL and INF for revolving lending, and you will bear all the risks of these revolving loans collapsing or asset defaults. There are no isolation measures here, and there is complete cross-infection, contrary to what is advertised and what people are told… In both traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi) sectors, information such as whether collateral is re-collateralized and whether there is a risk of contagion is critical and must be clearly disclosed, and no one should give vague interpretations of this.”

After Kamino launched its attack, discussions surrounding the Jupiter Lend product design quickly ignited the community. Some agreed that Jupiter was suspected of false advertising .   For example, Penis Ventures CEO 8bitpenis.sol angrily criticized Jupiter for blatantly lying and deceiving users from the beginning; others believe that Jupiter Lend’s design model balances security and efficiency, and that Kamino’s attack was merely for market competition and had impure motives —for example, overseas KOL letsgetonchain stated : “Jupiter Lend’s design achieves the capital efficiency of a fund pool model while also possessing some risk management capabilities of a modular lending protocol… Kamino cannot stop people from migrating to better technology.”

Under immense pressure, Jupiter quietly deleted the earlier posts, but this only triggered a larger wave of confusion and uncertainty. Later, Jupiter’s Chief Operating Officer, Kash Dhanda, admitted that the team’s previous claim on social media that Jupiter Lend had a “zero risk of infection” was inaccurate , and apologized, stating that a correction should have been issued at the same time as the deleted posts.

The core contradiction: the bất chấpnition of “risk isolation” Given the current polarized attitudes within the community, the fundamental disagreement seems to lie in the different definitions of the term “risk isolation” held by different groups.

According to Jupiter and its supporters, “risk isolation” is not a completely static concept; there is room for design . While Jupiter Lend is not a risk isolation model as commonly understood, it is not a completely open pooled lending model either. Although it shares a common liquidity layer that allows for re-collateralization, each lending pool can be configured independently, with its own asset limits, liquidation thresholds, and liquidation penalties.

Kamino and his supporters believe that any permission for remortgaging is a complete denial of “risk isolation,” and that project owners should not deceive users with vague disclosures and false advertising.

Upper-level consciousness: Some are stirring up trouble, while others are trying to mediate. Aside from the disputes between the two parties and the community, another noteworthy point in this controversy lies in the attitudes of various upper echelons within the Solana ecosystem.

First, there’s Multicoin, the venture capital fund with the most influence within the Solana ecosystem (which seems almost unnecessary). As an investor in Kamino, Multicoin partner Tushar Jain directly questioned Jupiter, stating that they were “either stupid or malicious, but neither is forgivable” —objectively speaking, his comments significantly exacerbated the controversy.

Tushar stated, “There are two possible explanations for the controversy surrounding Jupiter Lend. One is that the Jupiter team genuinely doesn’t understand the meaning of segregated collateral. Collateral handling is the most important risk parameter in a lending agreement. If they don’t even understand this core principle of the lending market, what else don’t they understand? Are they professional enough to inspire confidence in depositing funds? For a lending agreement, not understanding the meaning of segregated collateral is completely inexcusable. The other possibility is that the Jupiter team isn’t incompetent, but rather deliberately misinterpreting the core parts of its agreement to mislead users and attract deposits.”

Tushar’s motivation was clear: to take this opportunity to help Kamino defeat its competitors.

Another important statement from the upper echelons came from the Solana Foundation. As the parent ecosystem, Solana clearly did not want to see the two leading players within the ecosystem become excessively opposed, thereby causing the ecosystem as a whole to fall into internal strife.

Yesterday afternoon, Lily Liu, president of the Solana Foundation, posted on the X platform, addressing both projects and urging them to reconcile, saying: “Love you both. Overall, our lending market is currently around $5 billion, while the Ethereum ecosystem is about 10 times larger. As for the traditional financial collateral market, it’s countless times larger. We can choose to attack each other, but we can also choose to look further ahead—first, work together to seize market share from the entire mật mã market, and then jointly march into the vast world of traditional finance.”

To sum it up simply: stop arguing, or Ethereum will just get the freebies!

The underlying logic: the battle for the top spot in the Solana lending market. Considering the data development and market environment of Jupiter Lend and Kamino, this turmoil, though it started suddenly, seems to be an inevitable collision that was only a matter of time.

On the one hand, Kamino (red in the image below) had long held the top position in the Solana ecosystem’s lending market, but Jupiter Lend (blue in the image below) has captured a large market share since its launch , becoming the only entity in the Solana ecosystem that can challenge the former.

Mặt khác, since the massive sell-off on October 11, market liquidity has tightened significantly, and the overall TVL of the Solana ecosystem has continued to decline; in addition, the collapse of several related projects has made the DeFi market extremely sensitive to “security”.

When the market environment was favorable and there was ample incremental funding, Jupiter Lend and Kamino were relatively amicable, as both were still making money and it seemed that they would only make more and more money… However, when the market shifted to a zero-sum game, the competitive relationship between the two became more intense , and security issues became the most effective entry point for attack at present – even though Jupiter Lend has never had a security failure in its history, the suspicion of design flaws alone is enough to arouse users’ vigilance.

Perhaps Kamino sees this as the perfect opportunity to deal a heavy blow to his opponent.

Bài viết này được lấy từ internet: Solana’s two leading lenders have fallen out, and a foundation has stepped in to mediate.

Related: In-depth analysis of stablecoin chains: Plasma, Stable, and Arc introduction Artemis’ 2025 research report indicates that the economic scale of stablecoin settlements will reach approximately $26 trillion in 2024, reaching the level of mainstream payment networks. In contrast, the fee structure of the traditional payment sector is like a “hidden tax”: a roughly 3% handling fee, additional foreign exchange spreads, and ubiquitous wire transfer fees. Stablecoin payments reduce these costs to a few cents or even lower. When the cost of transferring funds plummets, business models will be fundamentally reshaped: platforms will no longer rely on transaction fees to survive, but will instead compete on deeper value propositions—such as savings returns, liquidity, and credit services. With the enactment of the US GENIUS Act and the similar regulatory model provided by Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance, banks, card networks, and fintech…

Phân tích #Tiền mã hóa ## định nghĩa# ethereumThị trường #Công cụ #© 版权声明Mảng 上一 hình ảnh Don't be fooled by the rebound! Bitcoin may retest the lows at any time | Invited Analysis 下一 hình ảnh ViaBTC CEO Yang Haipo: From Nof1 to x402, a brief discussion on the application and future of AI Agents 相关文章 NóngStory White Paper Interpretation: More Than Just a Story 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 35.873 3 An overview of the interest-bearing stablecoin track: Which projects are helping you make money? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 28.676 1 Airdrop Weekly Report｜Aster to Begin Phase 6 Airdrop on February 2; Meteora Airdrop Closes, 9.8% of Total Supply Unclaim 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 8.252 Ethereum Community Foundation (ECF) established, with a target of $10,000? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 28.975 1 US stocks sprint toward “never closing”: Why did Nasdaq launch a “5×23-hour” trading experiment? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 14.826 NóngSolana officially named 12 noteworthy new projects. 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 21.210 3 Bài viết mới nhất Did Jane Street “Manipulate” BTC? Decoding the AP System, Understanding the Power Struggle Behind ETF Creation and Redemption Pricing 21 giờ trước 659 Stop Comparing Bitcoin to Gold—It’s Now a High-Volatility Software Stock 21 giờ trước 704 Matrixport Research: $25 Billion Gamma Unwinding Imminent, Liquidity Yet to Return Behind the Rebound 21 giờ trước 650 ERC-5564: Ethereum’s Stealth Era Has Arrived, Receiving Addresses No Longer ‘Exposed’ 21 giờ trước 546 Hong Kong Regulatory Green Light: Asseto Enables DL Holdings to Achieve Compliance for Two RWA Business Implementations 21 giờ trước 624 Trang web phổ biếnTempoLighterGAIBMáy bay lượnPlanckRaylsBCPokerVooi Bee.com Cổng thông tin Web3 lớn nhất thế giới Đối tác đồng xuCá chép Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Giáp Tải xuống Bee Network APP và bắt đầu hành trình web3 Giấy trắng Vai trò Câu hỏi thường gặp © 2021–2026. Tất cả quyền được bảo lưu. Chính sách bảo mật | Điều khoản dịch vụ Tải xuống ứng dụng Bee Network và bắt đầu hành trình web3 Cổng thông tin Web3 lớn nhất thế giới Đối tác CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors Giấy trắng Vai trò Câu hỏi thường gặp © 2021–2026. Tất cả quyền được bảo lưu. Chính sách bảo mật | Điều khoản dịch vụ Tìm kiếm Tìm kiếmTrong trang webOnChainXã hộiTin tức 热门推荐: Thợ săn airdrop Phân tích dữ liệu Người nổi tiếng về tiền điện tử Máy dò bẫy Tiếng Việt English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia हिन्दी اردو Русский Tiếng Việt

智能索引记录