Jupiter Lend
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- TVL of $920m recorded independently
- No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
- No accounting methodology published at this check
- Single-chain deployment
Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.
- Not metIndependent audit report linked publicly
No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - Not metAccounting methodology published in the dataset
No methodology published at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
jup.ag/?ref=f6y1ryr2snn3
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
jup.ag/?ref=f6y1ryr2snn3 - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - Not met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
jup.ag/?ref=f6y1ryr2snn3 - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
jup.ag/?ref=f6y1ryr2snn3
- MetTotal value locked published independently
TVL $920m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - Met
- Not met
- Not met
- PartialListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/jupiter-lend - Not met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Met
A Solana lending market holding $920m, with no audit report retrievable at a public address at this check.
Our assessment
Jupiter Lend holds $920m on Solana and scores 5.2. The value is real and substantial; the published evidence behind it is not, and in lending that gap matters more than in almost any other category.
Why lending is the wrong place for missing audits
A DEX pool that fails loses the liquidity inside it. A lending market that fails can produce bad debt exceeding deposits, propagate through collateral shared with other protocols, and leave lenders with unrecoverable losses. Counterparty and contract risk carries 40% of the score here for that reason, and no audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check.
Scale is not a substitute for review
$920m makes this one of the larger lending markets in our comparison. It also makes it a larger prize. Attackers allocate effort in proportion to what can be extracted, so size raises the expected number of serious attempts rather than providing safety in numbers.
What would change the score
Publishing audit reports at stable public addresses, along with documented risk parameters and any incident history, would move this protocol into the upper half of the table immediately. The contracts would be identical; the difference is entirely in what a depositor can verify.
Who it suits
Jupiter Lend fits Solana users who need its depth and have formed their own view of unaudited lending contracts. Users who want published review should use Kamino on Solana, or Aave and Compound elsewhere.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Jupiter Lend is safe?
No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded market data. Contract risk is not tested by us.
Where do the TVL and audit figures come from?
A public analytics dataset queried at the verification date, plus the audit reports it links. Both are re-runnable by anyone.
Why do some protocols score zero on audits?
Because no audit report is linked in the public record. The indicator records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit exists.