Local copy saved as: research/crypto/whitepapers/3jane-whitepaper.pdf
Key takeaways from primary sources
3Jane is more analytically useful as a pooled unsecured-credit control stack than as a generic stablecoin or lending app. The docs repeatedly frame it as a peer-to-pool credit-based money market that underwrites merchants against verified crypto assets, offchain assets, future cash flows, and external credit scores.
The pool-backing docs show a hybrid balance-sheet design: idle supplier capital sits in Aave, but as merchants draw, TVV migrates into live credit lines. That means the protocol is packaging two very different backing regimes into one supplier product: overcollateralized base yield and protocol-underwritten unsecured credit.
The introduction page is explicit that 3Jane depends on a 3Jane-operated offchain underwriting algorithm (3CA) and on a separate credit-slasher / collections stack. This is a major control-surface difference from liquidation-centric DeFi lenders, because repayment and recovery depend on score design, underwriting policy, collections infrastructure, and legal enforcement rather than only on permissionless collateral seizure.
Jane Score is especially revealing. The docs say it combines multiple onchain scoring systems with offchain bureau-style scores, implying that underwriter discretion and data-provider quality become part of the credit primitive itself.
The protocol-global-config page makes it clear the protocol owner can tune credit caps, debt caps, utilization limits, rate-model parameters, tranche settings, markdown timing, and pause controls through one configuration surface. That means governance / admin discipline is a first-order trust input, not a peripheral implementation detail.
The risk page is unusually helpful because it openly lists fraud, default, liquidity, oracle, data-leak, and governance / upgrade risks. This confirms that the protocol should be modeled as hybrid credit infrastructure with meaningful offchain dependencies, not as a purely autonomous onchain money market.
Mechanism lens
Best current classification: proof-based unsecured credit market / future-income lending infrastructure / junior-senior credit tranching.
Closest comparison classes in the current corpus:
Wildcat for undercollateralized credit, but Wildcat pushes more power to borrower-defined venues and lender admission hooks.
Goldfinch for offchain-serviced credit, but Goldfinch routes trust through borrower / backer / consensus structures rather than one protocol-native underwriting-plus-collections stack.
Aave as the base-yield warehouse and liquidity buffer, but not as the main enforcement model.
Reusable insight: when a protocol moves from liquidation-first credit toward proof-based underwriting and collections, the key authority shifts upward into underwriter models, score inputs, legal interfaces, and parameter owners.
Whitepaper / docs status
3Jane publishes both an official whitepaper and a structured docs set.
For this pass, the docs were more legible than the raw PDF for extracting current mechanism details, while the whitepaper remains the canonical long-form primary document.
Local whitepaper path: research/crypto/whitepapers/3jane-whitepaper.pdf