Jupiter Admits Error in ‘Zero Risk’ Posts as Solana Lending Feud Escalates
What Triggered the Dispute Over Jupiter Lend’s Risk Model?
A public dispute has erupted in Solana’s lending sector later than 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 later than Kamino, a major , 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
What Does “Isolated” Mean 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 , your SOL gets lent out to loopers… You take all the blowing up. There is no isolation here and full cross contamination.” He added in a direct message to The Block that calling such 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 are being rehypothecated. That’s a very serious violation of trust.”
How Did Jupiter Respond—and What Comes Next?
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 poor 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 ‘secure’.”
Kamino has indicated it may restore Jupiter’s migration access if Jupiter “would need to stop misleading to their users and the entire ecosystem, and make the migration tool 2-way.”
Investor Takeaway
Where Does This Leave Solana’s Lending Competition?
Jupiter Lend 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 . 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.
