3Jane vs Cap: Which uncollateralized lender fits you? (2026)

Both protocols lend against borrower credit rather than requiring full collateral for every loan, but they structure the depositor side differently. 3Jane takes USDC deposits and mints USD3, a yield-bearing token supported by credit facilities to fintech and crypto-native borrowers. Users can stake USD3 for sUSD3, which compounds and has greater exposure to the pool. Cap issues cUSD as its dollar-denominated base asset and stcUSD as its yield-bearing product. Its model places underwriters behind unsecured borrower loans, and it also describes a marketplace for financial guarantees. The distinction matters: 3Jane makes its two depositor risk tiers explicit, while Cap emphasizes the underwriting layer. Neither setup makes borrower repayment certain, and Cap does not specify the exact loss-allocation order if underwriters are exhausted.

Cap is substantially larger by reported TVL, at about $191.43 million compared with about $11.18 million for 3Jane. That indicates more value deposited, not lower risk or a guarantee that withdrawals will be available on any particular terms. Both name Ethereum as their chain. 3Jane publishes variable supply yields of about 6.30% for USD3 and 13.23% for sUSD3, and describes commitment fees of upwards of 10% USD APY for Levered Callable Capital. These are variable figures, not assured returns. Cap's yield rates and underwriter terms are not published in readable form. Its blog says all USD deposit fees are being removed, but this does not establish that withdrawals, redemptions, borrowing or other actions are free. Ethereum gas costs apply to transactions on both protocols. Check each app and its documentation for current terms before depositing.

The main shared risk is credit exposure. 3Jane underwrites borrowers using off-chain and bank data, so repayment depends on borrower behavior and legal enforcement as well as smart contracts. Its own risk description says sUSD3 holders have greater exposure and would be hit first by defaults. Cap describes unsecured loans backed by underwriters, but does not publish the precise order of losses if underwriting capacity is exceeded. Both have two audits listed, but auditor names are not published in the information described here, and audit findings are not set out for Cap. Audits cannot rule out contract bugs, integration failures or defaults. Cap states that it is backed by Franklin Templeton, but does not explain what that backing covers. Neither protocol states its regulatory status here. Treat both as credit-risk products, not as cash equivalents or guaranteed deposits.

3Jane may suit users who want a clear choice between USD3 and a higher-risk sUSD3 tier, and who understand that its yield depends on credit performance. Its borrower facilities are also described in detail, including options aimed at fintech lenders, though ordinary retail users are not the intended borrowers. Cap may fit users who prefer a protocol with a named underwriter layer, cUSD and stcUSD products, and considerably more TVL. Cap also offers in-app help desk support. However, its yield rates, underwriter terms and full fee schedule are not published, so users have less detail to compare upfront. Neither protocol is a straightforward collateralized lending market: both depend on credit assessment and repayment. If you cannot evaluate unsecured lending risks or need fully stated fees and loss terms before committing funds, neither is an obvious fit.