Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Across Protocol involve interest?
Yes, Across Protocol's core economic engine involves riba-like elements. The base-layer LP fee structure is explicitly designed and described by the protocol and independent analysts as an interest-rate model analogous to Aave and Compound. For Muslim investors, this is a direct and central concern rather than an incidental one.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 28.5/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Across Protocol avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Across generates revenue from bridging and relay fees, split among LPs, relayers, and the DAO, with a base fee (5bps at launch) that scales upward with pool utilization. This utilization-driven fee curve is explicitly modeled on lending-market interest rates, mirroring Aave/Compound mechanics. Since this is the protocol's primary and native revenue mechanism — not a third-party integration — the income LPs and the treasury derive from filling bridge orders is structurally interest-based rather than profit-sharing from trade, equity, or genuine risk-bearing venture.
The "staking" feature is actually an LP reward-locking multiplier layered atop the base lending mechanism: liquidity providers deposit bridge assets into a shared pool and lock positions for enhanced emissions. Returns are variable and tied to utilization rather than a fixed coupon, which is a point in its favor structurally. However, the underlying source of that variable return is still explicitly characterized as interest on a loan, not profit or loss shared from a trade or productive venture — meaning variability alone does not cure the riba concern at its root.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Across Protocol involve?
Uncertainty around Across Protocol is moderate: the team, code, and audit trail are unusually transparent for DeFi, but governance integrity and reward classification remain unresolved. Strong operational transparency reduces gharar, while the 2025 vote-manipulation allegation increases it. On balance, informational risk is manageable but not negligible.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 53.2/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
The team is fully named and credentialed — co-founders Hart Lambur (ex-Goldman Sachs, Openfolio founder) and Allison Lu (ex-Goldman Sachs), CTO Matthew Rice (ex-Google), operating through the Risk Labs Foundation since 2019. Code is open-source, and the protocol publishes real-time TVL and revenue data via DefiLlama and Token Terminal. This is a strong transparency profile. Yet a 2025 accusation that co-founders used linked, undisclosed wallets to steer roughly $23M in ACX toward Risk Labs — met with a partial admission of inadequate disclosure — introduces a genuine, unresolved credibility gap around governance.
Across has been audited at least four times by OpenZeppelin (July 2022, January 2024, February 2024, October 2024), covering the HubPool, SpokePool, and related contracts, with findings ranging from critical to low severity and largely resolved. CertiK's Skynet page corroborates these audits without CertiK itself having conducted an independent one. Documentation on fee mechanics and LP reward multipliers is publicly available via Across docs and Medium, though it is written in DeFi terms with no attempt to frame risk or return in Islamic-finance categories, leaving classification work to the investor.
Maysir — Does Across Protocol involve gambling or speculation?
Across Protocol does not involve gambling or wagering in its design; it is an infrastructure tool for moving value across chains. The main speculative element lies in secondary-market trading of ACX itself, as with most listed tokens. This distinguishes the protocol's function from its token's market behavior.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 52.5/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Across Protocol is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Across solves a concrete infrastructure problem: settling asset transfers between Ethereum L1 and roughly 20 connected chains via an intents-and-relayer model backed by UMA's Optimistic Oracle for dispute resolution. With $27.5B+ cumulative volume, 17M+ transfers, and 4M+ users, this is demonstrable productive use, not a chance-based payoff structure. Fees are earned for performing a real settlement service (relaying, liquidity provision, dispute arbitration), which is fundamentally different from a zero-sum bet on price direction or a lottery-style mechanism.
Weighed against this genuine utility, ACX trades on open secondary markets like any liquid token, exposing holders to price speculation unrelated to the protocol's bridging function. This speculative trading is a feature of the broader token market, not something Across itself designed as a wagering mechanism, and third-party speculative misuse should not be read as defining the protocol's own purpose. The sustained multi-year usage data and named operating entity support treating ACX as a utility/governance token with real economic function, even as its market price behaves like any other traded crypto asset.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 85/100 | Core team members are named with verifiable credentials (Columbia, MIT, Georgia Tech, Goldman Sachs, Google backgrounds) and operate through a named foundation. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 45/100 | A specific, documented $23M DAO-fund manipulation allegation against co-founders remains contested and unresolved, denied by the founder but not independently cleared. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 85/100 | Sources document billions in real bridging volume and millions of users, indicating genuine infrastructure use rather than pure hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 70/100 | The protocol's own sector (cross-chain bridging infrastructure) is not a haram industry such as gambling, alcohol or arms. |
Summary: Across has a named, credentialed team and a substantial operating track record, but faces a serious, unresolved 2025 allegation of insider DAO-vote manipulation involving $23M in tokens.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 70/100 | The base protocol's business (bridging assets across chains) is a legitimate, non-prohibited sector per the sources. |
| Transaction Fees | 20/100 | Multiple sources state the fee mechanism is explicitly modeled on Aave/Compound interest rates rising with utilization, i.e. riba-like extraction rather than a flat/burned fee. |
| Treasury Assets | 55/100 | Treasury composition (ACX, UMA swap, foundation allocation) is disclosed but sources do not specify whether any treasury assets are held in interest-bearing instruments. |
| Revenue Model | 20/100 | Protocol revenue is generated via the interest-rate-style bridging fee, an explicitly interest-based revenue source per multiple sources. |
| Transparency | 85/100 | Code is open-source on GitHub with detailed developer documentation and API references. |
| Governance | 30/100 | Governance is nominally DAO-based but a specific, documented allegation describes insider wallets dominating votes, and the project is now shifting to a corporate structure. |
| Launch Fairness | 40/100 | Launch allocated only 12.5% to airdrop while 25% went to strategic partnerships/investors and 52.5% to a DAO treasury later alleged to be insider-controlled. |
| Token Distribution | 38/100 | Disclosed allocations show heavy concentration in DAO treasury and investor/strategic tranches relative to the community airdrop. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 65/100 | Documented real transaction volume and user counts suggest utility-driven usage, though the token itself is also actively traded speculatively. |
Summary: The protocol is a legitimate, open-source cross-chain bridging infrastructure whose fee mechanism is explicitly designed as an Aave/Compound-style interest-rate model, and whose governance has faced credible centralization concerns.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 20/100 | Protocol revenue derives from an explicitly interest-rate-based bridging fee model as described by the protocol and independent analysts. |
| Financial Status | 75/100 | Public dashboards (DefiLlama, Token Terminal) show sustained multi-billion-dollar volume and disclosed treasury/revenue data. |
| Interest Assessment | 10/100 | The base protocol explicitly implements an Aave/Compound-style interest rate lending model as its core fee mechanism, a direct riba concern. |
| Audit Quality | 80/100 | OpenZeppelin performed at least four dated audits (2022, twice in early 2024, October 2024) with published findings, most resolved; CertiK corroborates this audit history. |
Summary: Across shows real transaction volume, public financial dashboards, and multiple named OpenZeppelin audits, but its core revenue is generated through an explicitly interest-based lending fee structure.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 75/100 | ACX serves a documented governance and incentive-alignment purpose rather than being a purely speculative meme token. |
| Governance Rights | 45/100 | Governance rights exist via DAO voting but their fairness is directly undermined by a specific, documented insider-voting allegation. |
| Rewards Distribution | 25/100 | Rewards vary with utilization, but the underlying source is explicitly described as interest rather than genuine profit/loss-sharing. |
| Speculation Controls | 30/100 | On-chain data show no anti-whale mechanism, no transfer tax, and renounced ownership, indicating minimal built-in anti-speculation design. |
| Asset Backing | 35/100 | The token is not backed by tangible or halal assets; its value rests on anticipated fee flows from an interest-based mechanism, which sources describe but do not frame as "backing." |
Summary: ACX is a genuine governance/utility token with variable, utilization-linked rewards, but it lacks anti-speculation controls and its value is tied to an interest-based fee engine rather than tangible asset backing.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 55/100 | A liquidity-locking mechanism with a reward multiplier is documented as non-custodial and on-chain, but full terms (lock length, unlock conditions) are not detailed in these sources. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 10/100 | Sources explicitly and repeatedly classify the LP return as interest on a loan rather than a clean Mudarabah/Wakalah profit-sharing arrangement. |
| Rewards Structure | 20/100 | Rewards are utilization-variable but fundamentally interest-based per the protocol's own stated design, not tied to profit/loss on a real venture. |
| Documentation | 55/100 | Mechanics are described in Across documentation and blog posts, but risk disclosures specific to the locking feature are not detailed in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 15/100 | The core reward mechanism rests on an explicit, unresolved interest-based structure, which is a decisive Shariah concern rather than a minor gharar issue. |
Summary: There is a liquidity-locking/reward-multiplier feature rather than classic protocol staking, and it is explicitly built on an interest-bearing lending model, raising a significant unresolved Shariah classification issue.
Overall Assessment: Across is a credible, widely-used bridging infrastructure project with real audits and a named team, but its core economic design is explicitly interest-based, and a serious governance-centralization allegation remains unresolved, both of which are material Shariah and trust concerns.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar