HostJLUSDC vs INF — price, size and safety, side by side
JLUSDC (Solana) vs INF (Solana) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-10-17 / 2026-10-17.
JLUSDC vs INF — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-10-17T06:15:22
| JLUSDC | INF | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1.06 | $152.45 |
| Market cap | $458.81M | $233.62M |
| 24h volume | $19.92M DEX | $2.68M DEX |
| Liquidity | — | — |
| FDV | $458.81M | $233.62M |
| Holders | 13,503 | 42,083 |
| Safety grade | A | A |
Where they differ
- JLUSDC measures ~2.0× the market cap of INF
- JLUSDC measures ~7.4× the 24h volume of INF
- INF measures ~3.1× the holder count of JLUSDC
What the data says
JLUSDC
jlUSDC is the odd one out among this site's yield tokens: it isn't staked SOL at all. Deposit USDC into Jupiter Lend and you receive jlUSDC — mint 9BEcn9aPEmhSPbPQeFGjidRiEKki46fVQDyPpSQXPA2D — a receipt that appreciates as borrowers pay interest on the pooled dollars. The October 6, 2026 snapshot records roughly $458.8 million of deposits represented across 13,503 holders, which makes it one of the larger dollar-yield venues on Solana.
Reading a lending receipt correctly means stacking its layers. Layer one is USDC itself, with everything that implies — Circle's reserves, its compliance freeze powers, the fiat-backed model (our USDC guide covers that story). Layer two is the lending market: your yield exists because someone borrowed the pool's dollars against collateral, so the risks that matter are utilization crunches (in a panic, if the pool is heavily lent out, withdrawals queue until loans repay or liquidate) and bad debt (collateral crashing faster than liquidations can clear it). Layer three is the protocol's contract surface itself. None of these showed distress in this snapshot; all of them are the price of the yield.
INF
INF is a different animal from the other staked-SOL tokens on this site: it's the pool of pools. Sanctum's Infinity holds a basket of many liquid staking tokens at once, and INF — mint 5oVNBeEEQvYi1cX3ir8Dx5n1P7pdxydbGF2X4TxVusJm — represents a share of that basket, earning both the underlying staking yield and trading fees whenever anyone swaps one LST for another through the pool. The October 6, 2026 snapshot values it at roughly $233.6 million across 42,083 holders — a genuinely broad base for a product this structurally wonky.
The appeal is diversification where the LST field is most fragmented: instead of picking whether jupSOL or hSOL or bSOL wins, INF holds the field and clips fees from its churn. The cost is a second layer of moving parts. A vanilla LST asks you to trust one stake pool program; INF asks you to trust Sanctum's multi-pool machinery plus every constituent LST inside it — a stress event in any large member token transmits into the basket that contains it.
FAQ
Which is bigger, JLUSDC or INF?
By tracked market cap: JLUSDC (Solana) measures $458.81M and INF (Solana) measures $233.62M — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, JLUSDC or INF?
On the contract checks we publish: JLUSDC (Solana) grades A and INF (Solana) grades A. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have JLUSDC and INF performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-10-17T06:15:22, the measured snapshots show JLUSDC at +0.51% and INF at +2.39%.
The grade column is the one CMC's compare page cannot print — our grade is computed from the contract itself (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration). Changes are measured over the shared window stated on the chart, 2026-09-08→2026-10-17T06:15:22; a token with fewer measured points measures a shorter span inside it.
Figures are dated on-chain snapshots, not a live feed. Safety grades are structural checks — not investment advice. Free · no signup · a HostDeFi product.