3Jane vs Goldfinch: Active credit or winding down? (2026)

Both protocols connect crypto users to off-chain credit, but they package that exposure differently. 3Jane takes USDC deposits and mints USD3, a yield-bearing token funded by credit facilities to fintech and crypto-native borrowers. Users can stake USD3 for sUSD3, which provides levered exposure and takes losses ahead of USD3 holders. Its borrowers are assessed using credit, DeFi, exchange, and bank data; some facilities also use loan portfolios or special-purpose vehicles.

Goldfinch’s Prime product pooled exposure to multiple institutional private-credit funds rather than focusing on a single borrower. Its homepage described named fund managers, portfolio selection criteria, and more than 1,000 underlying loans. However, Prime is shutting down and no longer accepts new deposits. That makes the distinction practical as well as structural: 3Jane is the active option described here, while Goldfinch’s flagship fund product is in wind-down.

3Jane shows 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 not fixed returns. Its full fee schedule is not published; borrower pricing, protocol fees, and possible performance or withdrawal charges are also not stated. The higher sUSD3 yield comes with more credit-pool risk, since sUSD3 holders are more exposed to losses.

Goldfinch quotes a 10–12% net estimated yield for Prime, but does not publish a fee breakdown. “Net” indicates that fees are already reflected in the quoted estimate, but the individual charges are not specified. The yield is an estimate, not a guarantee, and Prime is shutting down. For both protocols, check current terms and documentation for applicable charges and withdrawal conditions. Ethereum gas costs also apply to on-chain transactions.

Neither model removes the risks of lending to real-world borrowers. 3Jane’s repayment depends on borrower behavior and legal enforcement, and its underwriting uses off-chain and bank data. A default could cause losses to the pool, with sUSD3 holders in the more exposed position. Smart-contract, oracle, and integration risks also remain. Two audits are listed for 3Jane, but the auditor names are not published on its homepage; audits do not guarantee safety.

Goldfinch Prime’s risks include the performance of underlying loans and fund managers, as well as Ethereum smart-contract risk. Its homepage’s yield and return figures are estimates or historical figures, not guarantees. No audits are listed for Goldfinch, and its product wind-down adds a separate practical risk for users considering any remaining activity. Read the relevant terms and wind-down information before taking action. Regulatory status, jurisdictional access, and withdrawal conditions matter for both products and should not be assumed.

For a new depositor comparing the products as described, 3Jane is the clearer choice because it is active and has a defined USDC-to-USD3 deposit route. It suits users who want exposure to credit lending and understand that returns depend on borrower repayments. The sUSD3 tier is not simply a higher-yield version with the same risk: it adds levered exposure and is more vulnerable to pool losses. Borrowing through 3Jane is aimed at fintech lenders seeking facilities of $5 million to $200 million, so ordinary retail users are not its target borrowers.

Goldfinch may still interest people assessing its institutional fund model, governance, or wind-down, but Prime is not open to new deposits. It also had jurisdictional restrictions, including being aimed at non-US investors. Do not treat its estimated yield as a current offer. If your main requirement is an open product for a new deposit, Goldfinch Prime does not fit that need.