#借贷协议风险 The Solana lending market is indeed experiencing internal strife. I looked at the data - the Sol ecosystem's lending scale is about $5 billion, while Ethereum is ten times that, and the gap with the TradFi collateral market is several orders of magnitude. In this situation, Kamino and Jupiter are still blaming each other for risk models, which is a typical case of "internal consumption."

The key issue lies in the expression of risk. Jupiter previously claimed that the treasury had "zero contagion risk," but this was later pointed out to be an inaccurate statement; Kamino subsequently directly banned the migration tool. From an on-chain perspective, this reflects a divergence in the understanding of risk isolation mechanisms between the two protocols—one emphasizes isolation, while the effectiveness of isolation is questioned by the other. Users are actually facing information asymmetry and uncertainty in risk perception amid this controversy.

The foundation's appeal is very pragmatic—rather than fighting among themselves, it's better to seize Ethereum's market share. However, from an investment research perspective, this divergence precisely exposes that Solana's lending ecosystem is still not mature enough, and there is still room for improvement in the standardization and transparency of risk models. It would be more prudent to treat the aggressive promotion of these protocols with caution in the short term and to make position decisions after the risk framework is clearer.