Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Doodles involve interest?
Doodles' base protocol shows no lending, borrowing, or fixed-interest mechanism; staking rewards are paid in NFTs, wearables, and "Universe Tokens" rather than guaranteed interest. This structure leans toward permissibility on riba grounds specifically, though the underlying funding source for rewards is not clearly disclosed. Muslim investors should treat the riba dimension as a secondary concern relative to the project's transparency issues.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 52.4/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Doodles avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Doodles' disclosed revenue sources are NFT sales, merchandise, live events, and prospective DreamNet "reference fees" — none of which are interest-based income streams. Treasury composition is disclosed only as percentages (Ecosystem Fund 25%, Company 5%) with no breakdown of underlying assets, so it cannot be confirmed whether treasury holdings include interest-bearing instruments. The base DOOD protocol does not itself offer lending or borrowing; a third-party NFTfi lending pool using Doodles NFTs as collateral is a separate dApp, not part of the core protocol, and should not be attributed to Doodles' own design.
Staking rewards are variable and non-monetary — exclusive NFTs, wearables, participation multipliers, and early DreamNet access — which resembles a profit/utility-sharing model rather than a fixed, riba-like return. However, one cited source describes staking in generic proof-of-stake "earn interest" and "validator" language that is inconsistent with DOOD's actual status as an SPL token on Solana/BNB Smart Chain rather than its own base-layer chain; this appears to be an inaccurate description rather than evidence of an actual interest mechanism. The true funding source (fees versus treasury emissions) remains undisclosed.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Doodles involve?
Doodles carries a meaningfully elevated level of uncertainty, driven primarily by the absence of any audit and inconsistent tokenomics reporting across sources. Some of this is offset by a doxxed, traceable team and real commercial partnerships. On balance, the disclosure gaps are significant enough that gharar should weigh heavily in any Shariah assessment.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 46.5/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Doodles' founders (Evan Keast, Jordan Castro, Scott Martin) and later leadership (Julian Holguin, Pharrell Williams) are named and publicly traceable, and the project has visible brand partnerships with McDonald's and Adidas, reducing anonymity-related risk. However, treasury and allocation disclosures are inconsistent across sources — one figure cites a 25%/5% Ecosystem Fund/Company split, while another references a separate 53% "Foundation" allocation — and this contradiction is not reconciled anywhere in available documentation, undermining confidence in stated tokenomics.
CertiK's Skynet page states directly that Doodles is "Not Audited By CertiK" and that no third-party audit exists; no other named audit firm or audit report for the DOOD token or its smart contracts appears in available sources. Documentation is limited to the original 2021 NFT minting contract, not the DOOD token contracts governing payments, staking, or governance. This absence of any audit for the actual token in circulation is a genuine and material gharar concern that should be named plainly rather than minimized.
Maysir — Does Doodles involve gambling or speculation?
Doodles combines elements of genuine utility — payments, governance, staking access, brand partnerships — with a token and NFT history marked by heavy speculative trading. The coin's own design includes productive functions, which is the relevant test, even though secondary-market behavior has at times resembled speculation. On balance, its designed utility keeps it distinguishable from a pure gambling instrument.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 50.3/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Doodles is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Doodles' stated utility spans payments within its ecosystem, governance voting on treasury allocations and feature upgrades, staking-based access to exclusive content, and integration with DreamNet, an AI storytelling protocol, alongside real commercial activity via McDonald's and Adidas partnerships. This productive, use-based design — rather than a token created solely to be traded — is what separates Doodles from a pure maysir instrument, even though one source describes its concrete utility at token generation as still largely theoretical.
Against this utility must be weighed a documented history of speculative behavior: over 148,000 ETH in historical NFT trading volume, an 85% price decline cited alongside "rug pull" characterizations after the pivot from NFT project to entertainment brand, and 40% of token supply unlocked at launch enabling immediate speculative selling. Such secondary-market speculation and third-party trading behavior are real risks worth noting factually, but under the applicable principle they do not by themselves render Doodles' own protocol design impermissible, given its disclosed productive functions.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 78/100 | Founders and executives (Keast, Castro, Martin, Holguin, Pharrell) are named, credentialed, and traceable with a documented history at Dapper Labs/CryptoKitties. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 45/100 | Reputable institutional backers exist, but an unresolved community allegation of a "rug pull" with an 85% price decline creates a documented trust concern that is not corroborated by any formal regulatory action. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 55/100 | The ecosystem has genuine brand/entertainment utility (partnerships, events, DreamNet) but sources also state DOOD's concrete token utility was "purely theoretical" at launch. |
| Ethical Practices | 80/100 | The project's own design centers on entertainment, collectibles and storytelling, with no indication of built-in exposure to a prohibited industry. |
Summary: Doodles has a publicly identifiable, credentialed founding team and notable institutional backing, though an unverified community allegation of a "rug pull" and price collapse remains an unresolved reputational concern.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 78/100 | The base ecosystem (NFTs, entertainment brand, AI storytelling protocol) operates in a non-prohibited sector per multiple sources. |
| Transaction Fees | 60/100 | Partial burn mechanisms on in-platform purchases are documented, but comprehensive fee handling for the base protocol is not fully disclosed. |
| Treasury Assets | 20/100 (low evidence) | Treasury allocation percentages are disclosed, but the underlying composition of treasury assets (interest-bearing or not) is not addressed in any source. |
| Revenue Model | 62/100 | Cited revenue sources (NFT sales, merchandise, future reference fees) show no interest-based component, though the revenue model itself is described as largely undeveloped. |
| Transparency | 52/100 | A whitepaper and tokenomics data are public, but DOOD's smart contracts are not documented and allocation figures conflict across sources. |
| Governance | 48/100 | Holders reportedly vote on treasury and feature decisions, but team/company retain sizable, non-diluted control and reported allocation structures are inconsistent across sources. |
| Launch Fairness | 55/100 | Launch combined airdrops to NFT holders/new community with Binance Launchpool staking and DEX farming, a hybrid model rather than a fully organic fair launch. |
| Token Distribution | 55/100 | Documented allocation spans community, team, ecosystem fund, liquidity and company, though total percentages and category labels vary between sources, indicating disclosure inconsistency. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 32/100 | Multiple sources describe strong speculative trading activity, an 85% historical price drop, and admittedly theoretical near-term utility, indicating a speculation-dominant profile. |
Summary: The project operates a genuine NFT/entertainment ecosystem with a utility-token layer (DOOD) for governance, payments and staking, but treasury composition, contract transparency and allocation figures show notable inconsistencies across sources.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 68/100 | Cited revenue streams (NFT sales, merchandise, future fees) contain no interest-based component, though this is inferred rather than explicitly confirmed. |
| Financial Status | 48/100 | Historical fundraising and recent trading/DAU growth are documented, but no audited financial statements or stability data are available. |
| Interest Assessment | 78/100 | Sources explicitly distinguish third-party NFT-collateral lending (NFTfi) from the base Doodles/DOOD protocol, which itself offers no native lending or borrowing. |
| Audit Quality | 10/100 | CertiK's project page explicitly states Doodles is "Not Audited By CertiK" with no third-party audit on record, and no other audit firm or report appears in these sources. |
Summary: Revenue appears to derive from non-interest sources like NFT sales and merchandising, the base protocol offers no native lending or interest, but no security audit of DOOD's contracts could be found and financial stability data is limited.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 45/100 | The whitepaper frames DOOD as a governance/utility token, but industry coverage explicitly refers to its "memecoin launch" and notes its practical utility was undeveloped at TGE. |
| Governance Rights | 55/100 | Sources describe holder voting on treasury allocations and feature upgrades, though the binding scope of this governance is not detailed. |
| Rewards Distribution | 55/100 | Rewards are described as staking-linked NFTs/wearables/multipliers rather than fixed payouts, but one source's generic "interest"-style framing introduces inconsistency in the record. |
| Speculation Controls | 40/100 | Team/company tokens carry a documented cliff-and-vest schedule, but the bulk of supply (Community and Liquidity, ~40%) was reportedly fully unlocked at TGE, weakening anti-speculation design. |
| Asset Backing | 38/100 | No reserve or tangible asset backing is disclosed; value appears tied to brand/ecosystem utility and market demand rather than a defined backing asset. |
Summary: DOOD is marketed as a utility token with fixed supply and burn mechanics, yet its practical utility was described as underdeveloped at launch and most of the circulating supply was unlocked immediately, weakening anti-speculation design.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 40/100 | A lock-and-earn staking mechanism is described, but custodial status, exact lock-up terms and flexibility are not clearly or consistently documented. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 25/100 | Sources conflict — one describes generic interest-bearing PoS validator staking language inconsistent with DOOD's actual SPL-token structure, leaving the underlying contract classification unresolved. |
| Rewards Structure | 40/100 | Rewards appear tied to ecosystem participation (NFTs, features, multipliers) rather than fixed yield, but a contradicting source frames rewards as interest-like, leaving the reward source unclear. |
| Documentation | 22/100 | No dedicated staking terms, lock-up disclosures, or risk documentation were found; existing descriptions are sparse and mutually inconsistent. |
| Shariah Alignment | 30/100 | The staking mechanism's core nature (activity-based reward vs. interest-like structure) remains an unresolved question given conflicting source descriptions. |
Summary: A staking mechanism exists for ecosystem rewards, but its custody model, lock-up terms, reward source and Islamic contract classification are inconsistently documented and could not be clearly established from the sources.
Overall Assessment: Doodles is a credible, team-identified entertainment/NFT brand extending into a token economy, but unresolved audit gaps, inconsistent tokenomics disclosures, and unclear staking mechanics leave several Shariah-relevant questions unanswered by the available sources.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar