Dolomite vs Project 0: Lending models and risk (2026)

Both protocols offer lending and borrowing, but their central ideas differ. Dolomite is a multi-chain money market with unusually broad asset support: its homepage claims more than 1,000 assets for lending and borrowing. It also separates borrow positions, which can help users keep different strategies from affecting one another. Zap supports swaps, looping, hedging and repayments within a position, while curated strategies provide another route for managing yield.

Project 0 is built around Unified Borrow: borrowing against a portfolio held across several venues rather than relying on collateral from one venue alone. Its markets cover assets including SOL, WBTC, ETH, cbBTC and xBTC. That portfolio approach is its clearest distinction, but it can also expose a borrower to the risks of each connected venue. Project 0 is Solana-only; Dolomite spans seven listed chains.

Neither of our reviews supplies a complete protocol fee schedule, so users cannot make a reliable fee comparison. Dolomite displays example ETH market figures, including supply and borrow APYs, a maximum LTV, a liquidation threshold and a liquidation penalty. These are sample market conditions, not fixed platform-wide terms, and the review says current rates and any reward terms appear in the app before confirmation. Network gas and possible DEX aggregator routing costs for Zap may also apply.

Project 0’s Markets page shows live APY and liquidity by asset, but its protocol fees, liquidation penalties and Solana network costs are not stated in the review. Before supplying assets or borrowing, check the relevant market for current rates and parameters, plus any additional costs shown at transaction time. Do not treat an advertised APY as a guaranteed return.

Both protocols involve smart-contract, oracle and liquidation risk. Dolomite’s isolated positions can limit the spillover from trouble in one borrow position, but they do not remove the risk of losing funds. Leverage and looping can make liquidation more likely, especially with volatile or thinly traded assets. The review also notes a sample 5% liquidation penalty for ETH, while warning that market figures change.

The audit information is not fully consistent: Public information shows two audits, while the review cites six audits named on Dolomite’s homepage and says production contracts have 100% test coverage. Treat those as distinct claims and verify audit details before use. Project 0 has no audits listed, although its footer links to an audit page whose contents are not public. Its cross-venue model adds exposure to the risks of the connected venues, and its track record is short. Neither of our reviews reports an incident history.

Choose Dolomite if you want a larger selection of assets, several supported chains, isolated borrowing positions or integrated tools for swaps and strategies. It also has the higher TVL, about $185.3 million versus Project 0’s $56.8 million. That is not a guarantee of safety or liquidity for every market, particularly among long-tail assets.

Project 0 is the more specific fit for a Solana user who wants to borrow against a portfolio spread across venues. Its broader navigation includes Strategies, Vaults, Stake, Pay and Portfolio, but public sources do not describe those products in enough detail to compare them fully. Project 0’s short listing history and unconfirmed audit information call for extra caution. For either protocol, inspect current market liquidity, rates, collateral parameters and service availability before committing funds; only take risks you understand.