Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Anoma involve interest?
Anoma's core protocol does not currently pay token holders fixed, guaranteed interest; fees are burned rather than redistributed as yield. However, a forum-level treasury proposal (ACES) explicitly contemplates lending non-XAN treasury assets at variable (Aave-like) and fixed interest rates. This is a design discussion, not a live feature, but its existence means the riba question is not fully settled and warrants ongoing scrutiny.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 54.5/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Anoma avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Anoma's protocol revenue comes from network and sequencing fees, including top-of-block auction and priority fees, which are burned rather than paid out to a treasury or token holders as dividends—a deflationary mechanism rather than an interest-bearing income stream. This burning design avoids a direct riba structure for base-layer revenue. However, the ACES forum discussion proposes that treasury-held non-XAN assets could be lent out under variable-interest (Aave-like) or fixed-interest schemes alongside a zero-interest option. Since this remains a proposal rather than a confirmed deployed feature, it does not currently constitute active riba, but it signals a real possibility the treasury could adopt interest-bearing arrangements.
XAN staking uses a customized Proof-of-Stake model where validators lock tokens to secure the network, with rewards tied to solver incentives and network fee activity rather than a fixed, pre-guaranteed rate—consistent with the variable, performance-linked reward structures generally viewed as permissible rather than riba-like. However, available sources do not detail XAN staking's lock-up terms, custodial arrangements, or slashing conditions, so this variable-reward characterization is an inference from general design descriptions rather than confirmed documentation specific to XAN staking. Investors should treat the absence of dedicated staking disclosures as a reason for caution rather than certainty when assessing the riba-permissibility of rewards.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Anoma involve?
Anoma carries a moderate degree of uncertainty: the team and code are transparent, but audit status and staking mechanics are not clearly documented in available sources. The named, credentialed founding team meaningfully reduces gharar, while the lack of a confirmed third-party audit and unclear staking terms increase it. On balance, informational uncertainty here is real and should factor into any investment decision.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 51/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Anoma's founding team—Adrian Brink, Awa Sun Yin, and Christopher Goes—is fully named and publicly documented, with verifiable prior track records at Tendermint/Cosmos, Web3 Foundation, Cryptium Labs, and Metastate/Heliax. The project is based in Zug, Switzerland, has operated publicly since 2020 under a named foundation board, and its whitepaper and specifications are open-source on GitHub. No sources report fraud, hacks, or regulatory action tied specifically to Anoma. This level of named-team transparency and open code substantially reduces gharar relative to anonymous or opaque projects, though disclosure of specific mechanics (staking terms, treasury composition) remains incomplete.
No security audit specifically naming Anoma or XAN, by any identifiable firm with a corresponding date, was found in the available research. References to Halborn, Trail of Bits, OtterSec, and Neodyme in adjacent research pertain to unrelated protocols, not Anoma. This absence of a confirmed audit for the base protocol itself is a genuine gharar concern and should be named plainly as such. Additionally, staking risk disclosures—lock-up duration, slashing conditions, custodial status—are not detailed in available documentation, compounding uncertainty around a core, staking-based utility of the token.
Maysir — Does Anoma involve gambling or speculation?
Anoma is not designed as a gambling mechanism; it is an intent-centric infrastructure protocol with staking, governance, and fee-based utility. Speculative trading can occur on any listed token in secondary markets, but this third-party behavior does not define the protocol's own purpose. The design itself centers on productive network function rather than chance-based payout.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 55.9/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Anoma is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Anoma's stated purpose is to function as a "distributed operating system" abstracting blockchain complexity for intent-centric applications, privacy, interoperability, and scaling—genuine infrastructure utility rather than a chance-based mechanism. XAN's core uses are staking to secure the network, governance participation, solver incentives, and payment of network fees, all tied to real operational functions. Growing daily active addresses since the September 2025 token generation event suggest actual usage rather than purely speculative engagement. This productive, utility-anchored design distinguishes Anoma from maysir-style instruments whose value depends solely on chance or zero-sum wagering.
Against this genuine utility, one must weigh the reality that 75% of XAN's 10 billion supply remains locked and will unlock through 2029, creating sustained sell-pressure that can encourage short-term speculative trading independent of network usage. Vesting schedules (12-month cliff, 36-month linear vesting) slow but do not eliminate this dynamic, and the token trades actively on open markets. Such speculative secondary-market activity is a feature of the trading environment surrounding almost any listed token, not of Anoma's own design, and per Shariah methodology should not by itself push the protocol toward a maysir classification.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 90/100 | Founders are named, credentialed, and publicly traceable with a documented prior track record. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 75/100 | No fraud or scam indicators tied to Anoma were found, though absence of negative reports is not conclusive proof of clean history. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 80/100 | Multiple sources describe concrete infrastructure and DeFi use cases for the protocol. |
| Ethical Practices | 80/100 | The protocol is designed as neutral general-purpose infrastructure, not targeted at a prohibited industry. |
Summary: Anoma's founders are publicly named, credentialed and have a verifiable track record, with no fraud or scam indicators found in the sources reviewed.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 80/100 | The base protocol is an application platform/operating system, not itself a prohibited-sector business. |
| Transaction Fees | 80/100 | Network and sequencing fees are burned rather than extracted as rent to any party. |
| Treasury Assets | 40/100 | Forum proposals discuss lending treasury assets at variable or fixed interest, though it is unclear if this is implemented. |
| Revenue Model | 50/100 | Current revenue is fee-burn based, but future protocol economics discussions include interest-bearing lending. |
| Transparency | 85/100 | Whitepaper, specifications, and technical docs are public and open-source. |
| Governance | 50/100 | Governance is described as "dual-track" but decentralisation and voting mechanics are not detailed. |
| Launch Fairness | 30/100 | Official allocation data shows a large backer/insider share from fundraising rounds rather than a fair public launch. |
| Token Distribution | 35/100 | Official distribution shows only 25% to community versus 75% to backers, insiders, foundation, and R&D. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 55/100 | Growing active-address data suggests genuine usage, but the token is early-stage and still trades speculatively. |
Summary: Anoma is an open-source, intent-centric distributed operating system for Web3 apps whose fees are burned rather than extracted, but its token launch and distribution favour backers and insiders over the broader community.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 55/100 | Fee-burn revenue is not interest-based, but proposed treasury lending mechanisms could introduce interest exposure. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | Address growth is positive, but 75% of supply remains locked with unlocks running through 2029, creating dilution uncertainty. |
| Interest Assessment | 35/100 | Protocol-level design documents explicitly describe variable- and fixed-interest lending mechanisms proposed for treasury assets. |
| Audit Quality | 10/100 | No audit naming Anoma/XAN by any firm with a date was found; retrieved audit results concern unrelated protocols. |
Summary: The protocol currently earns fee-burn revenue with no confirmed native lending/borrowing feature, growing usage but a heavily locked token supply, and no named security audit of Anoma/XAN could be found in these sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 80/100 | XAN is described with concrete utility functions including staking, governance, fees, and solver incentives. |
| Governance Rights | 60/100 | A governance role for holders is stated but detailed voting mechanics are not disclosed. |
| Rewards Distribution | 65/100 | Rewards for validators/solvers appear activity-based rather than fixed, though not exhaustively documented. |
| Speculation Controls | 45/100 | Vesting cliffs and linear unlocks curb insider dumping somewhat, but no broader anti-speculation mechanism for open-market trading is described. |
| Asset Backing | 40/100 | No explicit backing asset is described; value is tied to network utility and an as-yet-undefined treasury composition. |
Summary: XAN functions as a utility token with staking, governance and fee-payment roles, but lacks explicit asset backing and strong anti-speculation design beyond vesting schedules.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 50/100 | Validators are stated to stake XAN to secure the network, but custody, lock-up length, and mechanics are not detailed. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 40/100 (low evidence) | Sources do not classify the staking arrangement under any Islamic contract framework, and treasury lending discussions raise unresolved interest-related questions. |
| Rewards Structure | 60/100 | Rewards appear activity/fee-linked rather than fixed, but this is inferred rather than explicitly confirmed for XAN staking. |
| Documentation | 30/100 (low evidence) | No dedicated staking documentation covering lock-up terms, slashing, or risk disclosure for XAN was found. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | Lack of clear contract classification plus open questions about treasury interest mechanisms leave the staking system's Shariah status unresolved. |
Summary: XAN has a native Proof-of-Stake staking mechanism used to secure the network, but its custody, lock-up terms, slashing conditions and Islamic contract classification are not documented in the available sources.
Overall Assessment: Anoma appears to be a legitimate, technically substantive infrastructure project with a transparent team, but open questions remain around treasury interest-bearing proposals, concentrated token distribution, and the absence of a confirmed protocol audit or detailed staking documentation.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar