Quick Answer

Is GameBuild halal?

Name: GameBuild (GAME) Shariah Compliance Screening
Item: GameBuild
Rating: 52
Author: Crypto Ummah

GameBuild is classified as doubtful (mashbooh), with a Shariah compliance score of 52/100 under our 27-point screening methodology.

Overall52Mashbooh · Doubtful · Risky

Riba53.3Mashbooh

Gharar48.3Mashbooh

Maysir54.7Mashbooh

Full report Methodology

Shariah screening · tap a sub-dial

Project diligence tap a tile →

Moderate Riba Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)Moderate Maysir (High Risk)

GhararSharia pillar · 48.3/100 · Review · 15 criteria

Mashbooh. Prohibition of contracts with excessive ambiguity or hidden risk.

Team Transparency & Credibility68

Ethical Practices68

Transparency62

Governance48

Launch Fairness38

Token Distribution55

Speculation / Utility Ratio48

Financial Status35

Audit Quality38

Governance Rights55

Rewards Distribution62

Asset Backing42

Mechanism Type40

Documentation30

Shariah Alignment35

How GAME compares

★ GameBuild (GAME)

Compare directly: vs GAMEE · vs Phantasma Phoenix · vs ChainGPT

Purify your profits from GAME

A portion of profit from GAME isn't fully yours to keep — here's how to return it

What does "purification" mean?

Even fully screened assets can pick up small amounts of tainted income along the way — purification means giving that specific portion back, not paying extra.

Based on GameBuild's riba, gharar and maysir screening — see how we calculate purification amounts.

Overseen by Imam Omar Siddiqi, Shariah scholar and Imam of JMIC, among others, with donations paid directly to Jamiya Masjid & Islamic Centre — UK registered charity no. 1089986. Sent wallet-to-wallet; CryptoUmmah never custodies your funds. Always verify the destination address before confirming in your wallet.

Mashbooh · Doubtful · Risky

Your exact purification amount, calculated from GameBuild's Shariah compliance score.

Your realized profit on GAME (USD) — profit only, not principal

Amount to return0.00 USDC

to Jamiya Masjid & Islamic Centre, a registered UK charity

Purification isn't Zakat and isn't tax-deductible — it's the return of income that wasn't rightfully yours.

Scholar-verified · UK registered charity

Key facts

Chain	Ethereum
Last reviewed	19 Jul 2026

Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy

Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar

Islamic Finance Principles Assessment

Riba — Does GameBuild involve interest?

GameBuild shows no direct riba mechanism in its documented design. Revenue flows from advertising sales and Ad Spot marketplace transactions rather than interest-bearing lending, and the token carries no fixed-yield promise. For Muslim investors, the base protocol appears free of overt riba, though the ambiguous staking feature and undisclosed treasury composition warrant caution before assuming full clearance.

Assessment: Moderate Riba Score: 53.3/100

Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well GameBuild avoids interest-based mechanisms.

GameBuild's revenue derives from advertising sales and Ad Spot marketplace transactions, both tied to real platform activity rather than interest-based lending or borrowing. Sources describe no native lending or credit facility at the protocol level, and GAME instead functions as a membership or collateral voucher granting access to premium SDK, identity and security services. No source discloses treasury composition, meaning it cannot be confirmed whether idle funds are held in interest-bearing instruments such as bonds or bank deposits. This absence of disclosure is a transparency gap rather than confirmed riba, but it prevents a fully clean bill of health on treasury practices.

Descriptions of GameBuild's staking feature are thin and inconsistent. One source frames it as securing "network security" with rewards, a poor fit since GAME is an ERC-20 token on Ethereum with no independent validator set of its own. Other sources describe staking as producing membership or collateral vouchers unlocking SDK, identity, asset and security services, with rewards implied to flow from an advertiser-funded "ad-to-incentive" loop tied to quests and tournaments rather than a fixed, guaranteed rate. This variable, activity-linked structure looks closer to profit-sharing than riba, but without lock-up terms, slashing rules or reward formulas disclosed, this remains unverifiable rather than confirmed clean.

Gharar — How much uncertainty does GameBuild involve?

GameBuild carries moderate uncertainty: a named, credentialed team and open-source codebase reduce ambiguity, while unclear audit findings and a poorly documented staking mechanism increase it. The project

Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty) Score: 48.3/100

Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.

Maysir — Does GameBuild involve gambling or speculation?

Our assessment of GameBuild on this principle is set out below.

Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk) Score: 54.7/100

Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether GameBuild is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.

The Full 27-Point Screening

1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)

Criterion	Score	Analysis
Team Transparency	68/100	Named, credentialed founders (CEO/CTO and co-founders) are traceable via LinkedIn and a public AMA.
Fraud & Scam Risk	55/100	No fraud or rug-pull indicator specific to GameBuild was found, but this is inferred from absence of reporting rather than a positive clearance.
Use Case Legitimacy	72/100	Concrete gaming-infrastructure products (SDK, Ad Spot marketplace, analytics, Telegram app, Valoris game) are documented.
Ethical Practices	68/100	The protocol's own design centers on gaming infrastructure and advertising with no gambling or other prohibited mechanic described.

Summary: GameBuild has a named, credentialed team with a traceable operating history via the Carry Protocol/SLG.GAME merger, and no fraud or rug-pull evidence was found for the project itself once an unrelated same-named SEC case was excluded.

2. Project Operations (9 criteria)

Criterion	Score	Analysis
Core Protocol Business	70/100	Base protocol is gaming-industry infrastructure, not a prohibited business sector.
Transaction Fees	45/100	Ad-revenue-share settlement is described, but no source clarifies how base transaction fees themselves are handled.
Treasury Assets	35/100 (low evidence)	Treasury composition and holdings are not disclosed anywhere in the retrieved sources.
Revenue Model	70/100	Revenue is stated to come from advertising and marketplace transactions, with no interest-based component.
Transparency	62/100	Public GitHub with SDK, docs and contracts plus a published litepaper support disclosure.
Governance	48/100	Governance votes on platform parameters exist, but actual decentralisation versus team control is unclear.
Launch Fairness	38/100	GAME was created via merger of two pre-existing tokens with dedicated investor allocations, not a fresh fair launch.
Token Distribution	55/100	Disclosed allocation percentages span legacy circulation pools, ecosystem, business development, airdrop and investor tranches.
Speculation/Utility Ratio	48/100	Multiple utility use cases are described, but no usage data proves utility dominance over speculative trading given high price volatility.

Summary: The protocol runs open-source gaming infrastructure (SDK, Ad Spot marketplace, analytics) with disclosed but investor-favoring token allocation and merger-based (not fresh fair) launch mechanics.

3. Financial Health (4 criteria)

Criterion	Score	Analysis
Protocol Revenue	70/100	Ad sales and marketplace fees are the stated revenue sources, with no lending/interest income mentioned.
Financial Status	35/100	Reported price and volume figures show a small, highly volatile market with little disclosed financial transparency.
Interest Assessment	72/100	No lending or borrowing function is described at protocol level; the token instead functions as an access/collateral voucher.
Audit Quality	38/100	A Cyberscope audit is referenced without visible findings or dates; a separately found Halborn audit belongs to an unrelated project and was discarded.

Summary: Revenue comes from advertising and marketplace fees rather than interest, but the token trades as a small, highly volatile asset with an unverified audit and no disclosed treasury.

4. Token Economics (5 criteria)

Criterion	Score	Analysis
Token Purpose	72/100	GAME is consistently described as a utility token for purchases, governance, access and ad-spot transactions.
Governance Rights	55/100	Holders vote on platform-level proposals, limited to protocol parameters rather than broader control.
Rewards Distribution	62/100	Rewards are described as advertiser-budget funded and activity-linked, suggesting variability, though exact mechanics are undetailed.
Speculation Controls	45/100	Vesting cliffs limit some investor dumping, but most supply was already liquid at merger and no burn/buyback mechanism is described.
Asset Backing	42/100	No hard-asset reserve backs the token; value depends on platform utility and advertiser-funded activity.

Summary: GAME functions as a genuine utility token for governance, purchases and platform access, with variable ad-funded rewards and some vesting-based anti-dump structure but no hard-asset backing.

5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)

Criterion	Score	Analysis
Mechanism Type	40/100	A collateral/membership form of staking for service access is described, but custody model and flexibility are undetailed.
Islamic Contract Classification	32/100 (low evidence)	Sources do not describe the underlying contract structure needed to classify this staking mechanism under Islamic contract types.
Rewards Structure	35/100 (low evidence)	No source specifies whether staking rewards are fixed or variable or their exact revenue source.
Documentation	30/100 (low evidence)	No lock-up terms, slashing conditions, or dedicated staking documentation were found.
Shariah Alignment	35/100	Thin, partly inconsistent descriptions of the staking feature leave its Shariah classification and risk profile unresolved.

Summary: A staking-like collateral/access mechanism appears to exist, but its custody, reward source, and terms are too thinly and inconsistently documented to assess.

Overall Assessment: GameBuild presents as a genuine, non-meme gaming-infrastructure project with a credentialed team and real utility, but gaps in treasury disclosure, audit detail, and staking documentation leave several Shariah-relevant questions unresolved.

Scoring note: Meme coin: maysir-capped (C13=48); score already below the cap.

Is GameBuild halal?

RibaSharia pillar · 53.3/100 · Review · 10 criteria

GhararSharia pillar · 48.3/100 · Review · 15 criteria

MaysirSharia pillar · 54.7/100 · Review · 11 criteria

LegitimacyDiligence dimension · 65.8/100 · Review · 4 criteria

ProjectDiligence dimension · 52.3/100 · Review · 9 criteria

FinancialDiligence dimension · 53.8/100 · Review · 4 criteria

TokenomicsDiligence dimension · 55.2/100 · Review · 5 criteria

StakingDiligence dimension · 34.4/100 · Avoid · 5 criteria