Kamino: lending platforms rating breakdown
Solana
Solana’s main lending venue and one of the better-earning markets here at 3.62% gross on $1.32bn of deposits. Its risk framework is published in more detail than most of this page, with per-market caps and documented oracle choices.
Solana’s main lending venue and one of the better-earning markets here at 3.62% gross on $1.32bn of deposits. Its risk framework is published in more detail than most of this page, with per-market caps and documented oracle choices.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it | — | 32% | 7 | 6.5 | 3 of 10 | +0.16 |
| What the market actually earns | 3.62 gross yield per dollar deposited · computed · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 9 | 7.5 | 2 of 10 | +0.33 |
| Scale and the ability to exit | $1.32bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 7 | 7 | 5 of 10 | 0.00 |
| Risk architecture | — | 14% | 6 | 7 | 7 of 10 | -0.14 |
| Chains and assets | — | 10% | 2 | 6 | 9 of 10 | -0.40 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by chains and assets, worth -0.40 points against the median
Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it: 7/10
Every exploit and every bad-debt event with dates and amounts, and then the question that decides whether it matters: were depositors made whole, and by whom. Euler lost $197m in March 2023 and returned 100% of it after negotiating with the attacker. Venus carried nine figures of bad debt from a single oracle manipulation in 2021. Those are opposite outcomes from superficially similar headlines, and a rating that treats "has been hacked" as one fact is useless.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 3rd of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.16 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 3.
What the market actually earns: 9/10
Computed by us: thirty days of protocol fees, annualised, divided by total value locked. That is the gross interest the market genuinely generated per dollar deposited — before the protocol’s cut and before incentives. It is the honest version of the APY a front end shows you, and it separates a market where borrowers are really paying from one where the TVL headline is parked capital earning close to nothing.
Scored 9 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 2nd of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.33 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Scale and the ability to exit: 7/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and whether the market is deep enough that a withdrawal at size does not itself move the utilisation rate. In lending, depth is not a convenience — a market that is 99% utilised cannot pay you out until somebody repays.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 5th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Risk architecture: 6/10
Sourced to documentation: are markets isolated or pooled, what oracle secures each collateral, who can change a listing or a loan-to-value ratio and how fast, and — for the newer curated-vault designs — who exactly is picking your risk and whether they carry any of it. A single shared pool means one bad listing can impair everyone.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 7th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 14% weight that is 0.14 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 3.
Chains and assets: 2/10
Deployments with real deposits, not deployment count. A protocol on forty chains with liquidity on three is scored on the three.
Scored 2 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 9th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.40 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
Questions about this score
What happens to Kamino loans if Solana goes down?
+
Liquidations stop, because nothing settles. That is the specific risk of running a lending market on a chain with an outage history: positions that should be liquidated cannot be, prices move while the network is unavailable, and the market can reopen with bad debt that would not have accumulated on a chain that kept processing. Kamino's parameters are conservative partly in acknowledgement of this.
Are Kamino's leveraged vaults the same risk as depositing?
+
No, and the interface makes them look closer than they are. A plain deposit into a Kamino market is governed by the published risk framework — caps, oracles, liquidation thresholds. A leveraged vault is a strategy built on top of that market, with its own unwind behaviour under stress. Read how a vault unwinds before using one; the base market's documentation does not describe it.