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

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 [email protected] 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

Volante Technologies Customers Successfully Navigate Critical Regulatory Deadlines for EU SEPA Instant and Global SWIFT Cross-Border Payments

Volante Technologies Customers Successfully Navigate Critical Regulatory Deadlines for EU SEPA Instant and Global SWIFT Cross-Border Payments

PaaS leader ensures seamless migrations and uninterrupted payment operations LONDON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Volante Technologies, the global leader in Payments as a Service
Share
AI Journal2025/12/16 17:16
Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut

Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut

In a significant pivot, the Federal Reserve reduced its benchmark interest rate following a prolonged ten-month hiatus. This decision, reflecting a strategic response to the current economic climate, has captured attention across financial sectors, with both market participants and policymakers keenly evaluating its potential impact.Continue Reading:Fed Acts on Economic Signals with Rate Cut
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 02:28
Google's AP2 protocol has been released. Does encrypted AI still have a chance?

Google's AP2 protocol has been released. Does encrypted AI still have a chance?

Following the MCP and A2A protocols, the AI Agent market has seen another blockbuster arrival: the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), developed by Google. This will clearly further enhance AI Agents' autonomous multi-tasking capabilities, but the unfortunate reality is that it has little to do with web3AI. Let's take a closer look: What problem does AP2 solve? Simply put, the MCP protocol is like a universal hook, enabling AI agents to connect to various external tools and data sources; A2A is a team collaboration communication protocol that allows multiple AI agents to cooperate with each other to complete complex tasks; AP2 completes the last piece of the puzzle - payment capability. In other words, MCP opens up connectivity, A2A promotes collaboration efficiency, and AP2 achieves value exchange. The arrival of AP2 truly injects "soul" into the autonomous collaboration and task execution of Multi-Agents. Imagine AI Agents connecting Qunar, Meituan, and Didi to complete the booking of flights, hotels, and car rentals, but then getting stuck at the point of "self-payment." What's the point of all that multitasking? So, remember this: AP2 is an extension of MCP+A2A, solving the last mile problem of AI Agent automated execution. What are the technical highlights of AP2? The core innovation of AP2 is the Mandates mechanism, which is divided into real-time authorization mode and delegated authorization mode. Real-time authorization is easy to understand. The AI Agent finds the product and shows it to you. The operation can only be performed after the user signs. Delegated authorization requires the user to set rules in advance, such as only buying the iPhone 17 when the price drops to 5,000. The AI Agent monitors the trigger conditions and executes automatically. The implementation logic is cryptographically signed using Verifiable Credentials (VCs). Users can set complex commission conditions, including price ranges, time limits, and payment method priorities, forming a tamper-proof digital contract. Once signed, the AI Agent executes according to the conditions, with VCs ensuring auditability and security at every step. Of particular note is the "A2A x402" extension, a technical component developed by Google specifically for crypto payments, developed in collaboration with Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation. This extension enables AI Agents to seamlessly process stablecoins, ETH, and other blockchain assets, supporting native payment scenarios within the Web3 ecosystem. What kind of imagination space can AP2 bring? After analyzing the technical principles, do you think that's it? Yes, in fact, the AP2 is boring when it is disassembled alone. Its real charm lies in connecting and opening up the "MCP+A2A+AP2" technology stack, completely opening up the complete link of AI Agent's autonomous analysis+execution+payment. From now on, AI Agents can open up many application scenarios. For example, AI Agents for stock investment and financial management can help us monitor the market 24/7 and conduct independent transactions. Enterprise procurement AI Agents can automatically replenish and renew without human intervention. AP2's complementary payment capabilities will further expand the penetration of the Agent-to-Agent economy into more scenarios. Google obviously understands that after the technical framework is established, the ecological implementation must be relied upon, so it has brought in more than 60 partners to develop it, almost covering the entire payment and business ecosystem. Interestingly, it also involves major Crypto players such as Ethereum, Coinbase, MetaMask, and Sui. Combined with the current trend of currency and stock integration, the imagination space has been doubled. Is web3 AI really dead? Not entirely. Google's AP2 looks complete, but it only achieves technical compatibility with Crypto payments. It can only be regarded as an extension of the traditional authorization framework and belongs to the category of automated execution. There is a "paradigm" difference between it and the autonomous asset management pursued by pure Crypto native solutions. The Crypto-native solutions under exploration are taking the "decentralized custody + on-chain verification" route, including AI Agent autonomous asset management, AI Agent autonomous transactions (DeFAI), AI Agent digital identity and on-chain reputation system (ERC-8004...), AI Agent on-chain governance DAO framework, AI Agent NPC and digital avatars, and many other interesting and fun directions. Ultimately, once users get used to AI Agent payments in traditional fields, their acceptance of AI Agents autonomously owning digital assets will also increase. And for those scenarios that AP2 cannot reach, such as anonymous transactions, censorship-resistant payments, and decentralized asset management, there will always be a time for crypto-native solutions to show their strength? The two are more likely to be complementary rather than competitive, but to be honest, the key technological advancements behind AI Agents currently all come from web2AI, and web3AI still needs to keep up the good work!
Share
PANews2025/09/18 07:00