Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Everything involve interest?
Yes, Everything is structurally interest-based: its own documentation describes borrowing interest and "predictable interest mechanics" as native revenue and reward sources, not features of a bolted-on third-party service. Combined with leveraged, oracle-less margin trading built into the same pool, the protocol's core cash flows are riba-adjacent by design. For Muslim investors, this places EV's base mechanics in clear tension with riba prohibition, warranting avoidance pending any Shariah-compliant restructuring.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 20.6/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Everything avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Everything's disclosed revenue streams are swap fees, borrowing interest, liquidation fees, and a 5% trading fee during the current launch phase [22]. Borrowing interest and liquidation fees are intrinsically riba-based: they represent compensation for the time-value of lent capital and penalties on leveraged positions, not profit-sharing from a productive venture. No treasury composition, reserve asset, or interest-bearing custodial holdings are disclosed beyond this fee flow, but the fee flow itself already embeds interest as a structural revenue source for the protocol and its liquidity providers, rather than as an incidental or removable feature.
The base protocol explicitly unifies lending, borrowing, and leveraged perpetual trading within a single smart contract [6][22]. Collateral is described as "productive," with mechanics designed to "reduce borrowing costs," confirming that interest-based lending is a foundational, not peripheral, business line. Liquidity providers earn a blended return of swap fees, borrowing interest, and liquidation fees [22] — meaning anyone supplying capital to the pool is, in part, earning interest income by design. Unused collateral is further redeployed into undisclosed "approved external yield strategies" [6], compounding uncertainty about additional interest exposure.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Everything involve?
Uncertainty here is significant: no named team, no verifiable audit, and thin tokenomics disclosure sit alongside a real, functioning multi-purpose smart contract. What reduces gharar is the concrete technical description of the pooled AMM/lending/perpetuals architecture; what increases it is the absence of any independent verification of that architecture's security or governance. On balance, unresolved transparency gaps make this a live gharar concern for prospective investors.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 27.9/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
No named, credentialed founders, developers, or advisors for Everything or its predecessor SMARDEX appear in available sources; general crypto-personnel databases retrieved in research concern unrelated individuals entirely. Open-source status of the smart contract is not confirmed, nor is any governance structure, decentralization-of-control mechanism, or DAO framework described. Token distribution disclosure is limited to the fact that only 1% of EV supply was released via a single EV/USDT pool during a "dynamic funding round" [22], with no vesting schedule, pre-mine details, or full allocation breakdown provided anywhere in the sourced material.
No audit report naming Everything, Everything.inc, or the SMARDEX-to-Everything upgrade could be located in these sources; audit references retrieved instead concern entirely unrelated protocols (Substance Exchange, SSP Wallet, ZetaChain, Solana). This means Everything's smart contract security is, on the basis of available evidence, unaudited or unverifiable. Fee terms and general mechanics (85%/15% liquidity split, funding-phase fee structure) are disclosed at a high level [6][22], but risk disclosures, liquidation parameters, and formal terms of service are not documented in the sources, leaving material operational uncertainty for prospective users.
Maysir — Does Everything involve gambling or speculation?
Everything does incorporate genuine speculative risk through its built-in leveraged, oracle-less perpetuals engine, and leverage trading can resemble maysir when used purely for directional betting. However, the underlying protocol also performs real economic functions — swaps, lending, liquidity provision — that exist independently of any individual's speculative intent. The final take: the leverage feature is a legitimate gharar/maysir concern worth naming, but it does not, by itself, define the entire protocol as gambling, since third-party misuse of an optional feature is not determinative of the base design's ruling.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 35.9/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Everything is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
At its core, Everything provides decentralized exchange, lending, and capital-efficient collateral management — functions with clear productive utility distinct from pure chance-based wagering. The tick-based borrowing model and unified liquidity pool are engineered to improve capital efficiency for real swap and credit activity [6][22], and liquidity providers are compensated for supplying genuine market liquidity, not merely for placing bets on price direction. This underlying utility is what separates Everything from a purely speculative instrument, even though one module of the protocol (leveraged perpetuals) does carry gambling-like characteristics that require separate scrutiny.
Against this utility must be weighed the oracle-less leveraged perpetuals engine embedded directly in the base contract, which enables highly speculative directional trading with no disclosed risk limits, cooldowns, or anti-speculation controls [6][22]. No adoption metrics, market-cap, or liquidity-depth data were available to gauge how much real usage versus speculative churn the protocol currently sees. Given the near-total absence of independent usage data and the prominence of the leverage feature in the protocol's own marketing, secondary-market activity in EV is likely to skew speculative, reinforcing the case for cautious avoidance.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 15/100 (low evidence) | No named, credentialed, or traceable founding team for Everything/EV was found in the sources. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 35/100 (low evidence) | No fraud, hack, or rug-pull allegations specific to Everything/EV appear in the sources, but the lack of any team disclosure or audit prevents positive trust verification. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 70/100 | The protocol has a clearly described real function combining DEX, lending, and perpetual trading in one contract, indicating genuine utility rather than pure hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 20/100 | The protocol's own design natively bakes in interest-bearing lending and leveraged margin trading as core functions, not as third-party misuse of a neutral base layer. |
Summary: The sources provide no traceable team information or audit for Everything/EV, though the project appears to be a genuine, functioning DeFi build rather than a hype-only token.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 20/100 | The base protocol's core business is unified lending/borrowing and leveraged derivatives trading, sectors that raise direct riba and gharar concerns by design. |
| Transaction Fees | 25/100 | Fees include borrowing interest and liquidation fees flowing to liquidity providers and a trading fee funding "ecosystem development," with no burn mechanism disclosed. |
| Treasury Assets | 25/100 | Unused pool collateral is stated to be deployed into "approved external yield strategies," suggesting exposure to interest-bearing instruments, though full treasury composition is not disclosed. |
| Revenue Model | 15/100 | Protocol revenue is explicitly composed of borrowing interest, swap fees, and liquidation fees, making interest a stated component of the revenue model. |
| Transparency | 30/100 (low evidence) | No source confirms whether the Everything protocol codebase is open-source or discloses full technical documentation. |
| Governance | 30/100 (low evidence) | No governance structure, decentralisation mechanism, or holder voting process for the protocol is described in the sources. |
| Launch Fairness | 40/100 | A "dynamic funding round" made 1% of EV supply accessible via a single liquidity pool, which is a disclosed launch mechanism, but insider allocation and fairness details are not given. |
| Token Distribution | 30/100 (low evidence) | No breakdown of total token allocation across team, investors, community, or vesting schedules for EV appears in the sources. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 30/100 | The protocol's design centers on leveraged, oracle-less margin trading and borrowing, indicating a speculation-heavy use profile despite genuine underlying utility. |
Summary: Everything is a unified DEX, lending and perpetuals protocol operating through a single smart contract and pool, but its fee handling, governance, and token distribution are only partially disclosed.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 15/100 | Stated revenue streams (borrowing interest, liquidation fees) are explicitly interest-based rather than fee-only. |
| Financial Status | 40/100 (low evidence) | No market capitalization, price stability, or financial-health data for EV is present in the sources. |
| Interest Assessment | 10/100 | The base protocol itself, not a third-party dApp, offers lending/borrowing with described "interest mechanics," directly implicating riba at the protocol level. |
| Audit Quality | 15/100 (low evidence) | No audit report naming Everything, Everything.inc, or EV was found; all Halborn/other audit sources retrieved concern unrelated projects. |
Summary: The protocol's own revenue and native yield are explicitly generated through borrowing interest, liquidation fees and leveraged trading, and no audit of the protocol could be found in these sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 60/100 | EV is used functionally within the protocol's trading, lending and liquidity mechanics rather than existing purely as a speculative meme symbol. |
| Governance Rights | 30/100 (low evidence) | No description of EV holder governance rights or voting mechanisms was found in the sources. |
| Rewards Distribution | 25/100 | Rewards to liquidity providers are variable but explicitly sourced in part from borrowing interest, an interest-based component. |
| Speculation Controls | 25/100 | No anti-speculation controls are mentioned; the protocol instead actively enables leveraged, oracle-less margin trading, which increases speculative exposure. |
| Asset Backing | 30/100 | Token value is tied to protocol fee flows and liquidity-pool activity rather than to any disclosed halal reserve asset. |
Summary: EV is functionally embedded in the protocol's trading and lending mechanics rather than being a pure meme token, but its rewards partly derive from interest and no governance rights or anti-speculation controls are documented.
5. Staking Mechanism
Everything has no native staking mechanism, so these five criteria are not applicable and are excluded from the score entirely rather than counted as zeros.
Overall Assessment: Everything (EV) is a technically substantive but interest- and leverage-centric DeFi protocol whose core design embeds riba-like lending and speculative margin trading, while key legitimacy and audit information remains undisclosed in the available sources.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar