The post Solana Ecosystem Questions Jupiter Lend’s Isolation Claims Amid Rehypothecation Warnings appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: Challenge on Jupiter Lend vault independence over rehypothecation risks. Public criticism arises, claiming interconnected risks. Solana community urges clarity on risk separation claims. The independence of Jupiter Lend’s vaults has been challenged by Solana ecosystem figures, including Fluid and Kamino co-founders, due to concerns over asset rehypothecation and risk exposure. This controversy highlights critical transparency issues in DeFi, potentially affecting Jupiter Lend’s credibility and user trust, amid concerns of risk disclosure discrepancies within Solana’s ecosystem. Rehypothecation Risks and Call for Transparency Intensify The independence of vaults at Jupiter Lend, part of the Solana ecosystem, is under scrutiny. Fluid’s co-founder Samyak Jain said rehypothecation was used for capital efficiency, meaning collateral isn’t completely isolated across vaults. Kamino co-founder Marius also joined the dialogue, signaling that the migration tool to Jupiter Lend was blocked due to misleading design claims and risk underestimations, prompting concerns over user exposure to recursive strategies. Potential shifts in capital allocation are seen as community players reassess their positions in light of these revelations. Kamino and Fluid have pointed to misrepresentations in Jupiter’s messaging, calling the supposed risk separation and vault independence claims misleading. The public critique encompasses how recursive borrowing—such as using SOL—exposes lenders to unintended risks linked with rehypothecating collateral into other assets. “Vaults use rehypothecation for capital efficiency and are therefore not fully isolated in practice.” The Solana community, amid these allegations, echoes a desire for a definitive response from Jupiter. While Jupiter has emphasized 95% LTV and supposed innovation, critics argue that this masks underlying asset correlation risks. As of yet, Jupiter hasn’t provided a formal rebuttal to these cross-asset exposure concerns. Historical Context, Price Data, and Expert Insights Did you know? Controversy around Jupiter Lend’s vaults signals a recurring concern in DeFi over transparency and risk communication. From CoinMarketCap data, Solana’s… The post Solana Ecosystem Questions Jupiter Lend’s Isolation Claims Amid Rehypothecation Warnings appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: Challenge on Jupiter Lend vault independence over rehypothecation risks. Public criticism arises, claiming interconnected risks. Solana community urges clarity on risk separation claims. The independence of Jupiter Lend’s vaults has been challenged by Solana ecosystem figures, including Fluid and Kamino co-founders, due to concerns over asset rehypothecation and risk exposure. This controversy highlights critical transparency issues in DeFi, potentially affecting Jupiter Lend’s credibility and user trust, amid concerns of risk disclosure discrepancies within Solana’s ecosystem. Rehypothecation Risks and Call for Transparency Intensify The independence of vaults at Jupiter Lend, part of the Solana ecosystem, is under scrutiny. Fluid’s co-founder Samyak Jain said rehypothecation was used for capital efficiency, meaning collateral isn’t completely isolated across vaults. Kamino co-founder Marius also joined the dialogue, signaling that the migration tool to Jupiter Lend was blocked due to misleading design claims and risk underestimations, prompting concerns over user exposure to recursive strategies. Potential shifts in capital allocation are seen as community players reassess their positions in light of these revelations. Kamino and Fluid have pointed to misrepresentations in Jupiter’s messaging, calling the supposed risk separation and vault independence claims misleading. The public critique encompasses how recursive borrowing—such as using SOL—exposes lenders to unintended risks linked with rehypothecating collateral into other assets. “Vaults use rehypothecation for capital efficiency and are therefore not fully isolated in practice.” The Solana community, amid these allegations, echoes a desire for a definitive response from Jupiter. While Jupiter has emphasized 95% LTV and supposed innovation, critics argue that this masks underlying asset correlation risks. As of yet, Jupiter hasn’t provided a formal rebuttal to these cross-asset exposure concerns. Historical Context, Price Data, and Expert Insights Did you know? Controversy around Jupiter Lend’s vaults signals a recurring concern in DeFi over transparency and risk communication. From CoinMarketCap data, Solana’s…

Solana Ecosystem Questions Jupiter Lend’s Isolation Claims Amid Rehypothecation Warnings

2025/12/07 04:08
Key Points:
  • Challenge on Jupiter Lend vault independence over rehypothecation risks.
  • Public criticism arises, claiming interconnected risks.
  • Solana community urges clarity on risk separation claims.

The independence of Jupiter Lend’s vaults has been challenged by Solana ecosystem figures, including Fluid and Kamino co-founders, due to concerns over asset rehypothecation and risk exposure.

This controversy highlights critical transparency issues in DeFi, potentially affecting Jupiter Lend’s credibility and user trust, amid concerns of risk disclosure discrepancies within Solana’s ecosystem.

Rehypothecation Risks and Call for Transparency Intensify

The independence of vaults at Jupiter Lend, part of the Solana ecosystem, is under scrutiny. Fluid’s co-founder Samyak Jain said rehypothecation was used for capital efficiency, meaning collateral isn’t completely isolated across vaults. Kamino co-founder Marius also joined the dialogue, signaling that the migration tool to Jupiter Lend was blocked due to misleading design claims and risk underestimations, prompting concerns over user exposure to recursive strategies.

Potential shifts in capital allocation are seen as community players reassess their positions in light of these revelations. Kamino and Fluid have pointed to misrepresentations in Jupiter’s messaging, calling the supposed risk separation and vault independence claims misleading. The public critique encompasses how recursive borrowing—such as using SOL—exposes lenders to unintended risks linked with rehypothecating collateral into other assets.

The Solana community, amid these allegations, echoes a desire for a definitive response from Jupiter. While Jupiter has emphasized 95% LTV and supposed innovation, critics argue that this masks underlying asset correlation risks. As of yet, Jupiter hasn’t provided a formal rebuttal to these cross-asset exposure concerns.

Historical Context, Price Data, and Expert Insights

Did you know? Controversy around Jupiter Lend’s vaults signals a recurring concern in DeFi over transparency and risk communication.

From CoinMarketCap data, Solana’s (SOL) price stands at $132.13, with a market cap of 73.99 billion. These figures highlight a 2.43% market dominance but reflect a price decrease of 0.41% in 24 hours. The trading volume dropped significantly by 53.37%, as recorded on December 6, 2025.

Solana(SOL), daily chart, screenshot on CoinMarketCap at 19:59 UTC on December 6, 2025. Source: CoinMarketCap

Insights from the Coincu research team suggest that continuing leverage and rehypothecation strategies could amplify systemic exposure, highlighting the need for clearer protocols on risk management. While Solana aims to maintain its DeFi leadership, addressing concerns around vault design is crucial for preserving ecosystem integrity.

Source: https://coincu.com/news/solana-jupiter-lend-challenge-rehypothecation/

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

Missed Bitcoin’s ICO? BullZilla’s Explosive Stage 13 Surge Is Your Second Shot

Missed Bitcoin’s ICO? BullZilla’s Explosive Stage 13 Surge Is Your Second Shot

The post Missed Bitcoin’s ICO? BullZilla’s Explosive Stage 13 Surge Is Your Second Shot appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crypto Projects Bitcoin early believers made millions, and BullZilla Stage 13 is giving a new chance for those hunting the best crypto presales to buy with explosive ROI potential. Do cryptocurrency opportunities really come twice, or does lightning only strike once for those hunting the best crypto presales to buy? The world still talks about Bitcoin’s earliest days when the price hovered near pennies, and only a small circle of curious technophiles understood what was coming. Those early believers stacked thousands of coins when the market barely noticed them. Today, that tiny window sits in history as proof that early entries can build life-changing gains. Bitcoin’s rise from cents to tens of thousands of dollars remains the most prominent example of missed fortunes in the digital asset world. The story now moves into a new chapter as BullZilla climbs through its presale with a setup that feels familiar to anyone who watched Bitcoin explode long after ignoring it at the bottom. With the presale live, BullZilla brings a structure that pulls in traders searching for the best crypto presales to buy while regret-filled communities ask whether this could be their redemption moment. Stage 13 Zilla Sideways Smash shows the project heating up and attracting attention from those who once wished for a second chance at early prices before the next massive wave takes off. BullZilla Presale at a glance Stage: Stage 13 (Zilla Sideways Smash) Phase: 3 Current Price: $0.00033905 Presale Tally: Over $1M+ Raised  Token Holders: Over 3700 Tokens Sold: Over 32 B  Current ROI: ($1,454.75% ) from Stage 13C to the Listing Price of $0.00527 ROI until Stage 13C for the Earliest Joiners: $5,796.52% $1000 Investment =2.949 million $BZIL Tokens Upcoming Price Surge = 1.96% increase in 13D from 0.00033905 to 0.00034572 Join the BullZilla presale now while…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/10 07:15
US SEC Chairman: Many types of cryptocurrency ICOs are not under the SEC's jurisdiction.

US SEC Chairman: Many types of cryptocurrency ICOs are not under the SEC's jurisdiction.

PANews reported on December 10th, citing The Block, that SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stated at the Blockchain Association's annual policy summit on Tuesday that many types of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) should be considered non-securities transactions and are outside the jurisdiction of Wall Street regulators. He explained that this is precisely what the SEC wants to encourage, as these types of transactions, by their definition, do not fall under the category of securities. Atkins specifically mentioned the token taxonomy he introduced last month, which divides the crypto industry into four categories of tokens. He pointed out last month that network tokens, digital collectibles, and digital instruments should not be considered securities in themselves. On Tuesday, he further stated that ICOs involving these three types of tokens should also be considered non-securities transactions, meaning they are not subject to SEC regulation. Atkins also mentioned that, regarding initial coin offerings (ICOs), the SEC believes the only type of token it should regulate is tokenized securities, which are tokenized forms of securities already under SEC regulation and traded on-chain. He further explained that ICOs span four themes, three of which fall under the jurisdiction of the CFTC. The SEC will delegate these matters to the CFTC, while focusing on regulating tokenized securities.
Share
PANews2025/12/10 07:16