Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Gram (prev. Toncoin) involve interest?
Gram itself does not run on an interest-bearing lending model at the base-protocol layer; its revenue comes from transaction fees and a fixed block subsidy, not interest income. Some third-party dApps built on TON offer lending/borrowing, but this is a separate layer from the native protocol. Overall, the core asset appears free of direct riba exposure, though investors should scrutinize any yield-bearing wrapped products built atop it.
Assessment: Minor Riba
Score: 85/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Gram (prev. Toncoin) avoids interest-based mechanisms.
TON's protocol revenue is generated from network transaction fees, roughly half burned and half distributed to validators, alongside a fixed per-block subsidy (1.7 GRAM masterchain, 1 GRAM basechain). This is a usage-based fee model, not interest income, and no evidence indicates the Foundation treasury holds interest-bearing instruments. Annualised fee revenue fell sharply after a deliberate ~sixfold fee cut in 2026 intended to enable micro-transactions. Lending and borrowing functionality exists only through third-party dApps layered on top of TON, not within the base protocol itself, meaning the core revenue mechanism is fee-for-service rather than riba-based.
Staking rewards combine a fixed per-block subsidy with a variable share of transaction fees, producing a hybrid rather than a purely fixed return. Because rewards partly track actual network fee activity and partly derive from protocol-level issuance (inflation), they resemble a profit/usage-sharing arrangement more than a guaranteed interest payment, though the fixed subsidy component introduces some riba-like characteristics. Rewards derive from genuine validator work securing the network, not from lending capital at a predetermined rate. Delegators bear real economic risk through validator performance and slashing exposure, which supports treating this as compensation for service rather than interest.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Gram (prev. Toncoin) involve?
Gharar in Gram is moderate: the team and technology are transparently documented, but the absence of a base-layer security audit and unresolved regulatory history introduce real uncertainty. Open-source code and public roadmaps reduce ambiguity, while the lack of native-protocol audit coverage and centralization concerns around Telegram's growing validator influence increase it. On balance, informed investors can assess the risks, but the audit gap is a genuine, nameable concern.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 56.1/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Gram's leadership is fully named and publicly traceable: Pavel and Nikolai Durov originated the project, and it is now stewarded by the independent TON Foundation under CEO Max Crown, with contributors such as Anatoliy Makosov and Kirill Emelianenko publicly credited. The codebase is open-source on GitHub with extensive public documentation. This is a strong transparency profile compared to anonymous-team projects. However, Telegram's 2026 entry as the network's largest validator raises fresh centralization concerns, adding a layer of governance uncertainty not present in the earlier, more decentralized phase of the project.
No audit of the core TON base-layer protocol or validator software is identifiable in available sources. Audits from firms like Halborn and EtherAuthority cover only third-party contracts, such as Substance Exchange's wrapped-TON Ethereum token, not the native chain itself. This is a plain gharar concern: the protocol securing billions in value and Telegram-scale usage lacks a disclosed, dedicated base-layer security review. Staking mechanics, fee structures and validator requirements are otherwise well-documented via TON Docs, but the missing core audit remains a material information gap for risk-conscious investors.
Maysir — Does Gram (prev. Toncoin) involve gambling or speculation?
Gram is not designed as a gambling or purely speculative instrument; it functions as infrastructure for payments, staking and dApps tied to Telegram's massive user base. What distinguishes it from maysir-type instruments is this productive, utility-driven design, even though its market price experiences the volatility typical of actively traded top-20 assets. The overall picture favors utility over speculation, though secondary-market trading behavior warrants caution.
Assessment: Minor Maysir (Incidental)
Score: 70/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Gram (prev. Toncoin) is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
TON's genuine utility lies in its integration with Telegram, enabling payments, storage, smart contracts and dApp access for a user base exceeding a billion people. Validators and delegators earn rewards for securing a functioning network that processes real transactions, and the fee-burn/validator-split model reflects actual usage rather than a zero-sum wagering structure. This productive economic function, distinct from speculative games of chance, is what separates a utility-bearing layer-1 token from instruments whose sole purpose is gambling. Real adoption through a globally used messaging platform reinforces this functional, non-speculative design intent.
Against this genuine utility, GRAM trades actively as a top-20 cryptocurrency with significant price volatility, and its history includes a large, SEC-halted speculative token sale. Vesting schedules on team, investor, treasury and airdrop allocations provide some anti-speculation structure, but no broader mechanism dampens secondary-market speculation. Third-party misuse of any liquid, tradable asset for excessive speculation is a market behavior issue rather than a flaw in the coin's own design, and should not by itself push the asset toward an impermissible classification. On balance, genuine utility and adoption outweigh speculative trading concerns.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 78/100 | Founders (Pavel and Nikolai Durov) and current leadership (TON Foundation, CEO Max Crown) are named, credentialed and publicly traceable. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 50/100 | The original Gram offering was subject to a major SEC enforcement action, forced refunds and a penalty, though this was resolved via settlement rather than an unresolved ongoing fraud. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 82/100 | Sources describe clear, large-scale real-world usage for payments, smart contracts and dApps integrated into Telegram, distinguishing it from pure-hype tokens. |
| Ethical Practices | 78/100 | The base protocol is general-purpose payments/smart-contract infrastructure with no haram-specific design; any misuse via third-party dApps does not reflect the protocol's own purpose. |
Summary: The project has a credentialed, traceable founding team and now professional leadership, but carries a significant historical SEC enforcement episode over its original token sale.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | Sources consistently describe TON as neutral layer-1 blockchain infrastructure, not tied to a prohibited sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 82/100 | Roughly half of transaction fees are burned and the rest paid to validators for service rendered, with no interest-like extraction described. |
| Treasury Assets | 55/100 | Sources disclose a treasury allocation of 18% of token supply but give no detail on whether treasury holdings include interest-bearing instruments. |
| Revenue Model | 82/100 | Revenue is explicitly sourced from network transaction fees, not from interest-based lending activity. |
| Transparency | 88/100 | The codebase is open-source with extensive public developer documentation and whitepapers. |
| Governance | 52/100 | Governance is partly community/validator-driven, but sources note Telegram's large 2026 validator stake gives it significantly outsized influence over network direction. |
| Launch Fairness | 28/100 | The original launch was a private SAFT sale to accredited investors that drew SEC action, and current supply retains a large 44.2% pre-mine, indicating a non-fair launch. |
| Token Distribution | 30/100 | Disclosed allocations show large pre-mine, team/shareholder and treasury shares versus a comparatively small community airdrop, indicating concentrated rather than broad distribution. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 62/100 | Sources note genuine payment/utility usage inside Telegram's ecosystem alongside heavy trading activity as a top-20 asset, suggesting a mixed but utility-leaning profile. |
Summary: TON/Gram is an open-source, functioning layer-1 protocol with fee-burn mechanics, though its token launch was insider-heavy and governance shows growing centralisation around a dominant validator.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 82/100 | Protocol revenue is generated from transaction fees rather than interest-based mechanisms. |
| Financial Status | 60/100 | Disclosed figures show fee revenue fell sharply after a deliberate fee cut, indicating some financial volatility despite continued top-20 market standing. |
| Interest Assessment | 75/100 | The base protocol's described functions (fees, staking, payments) do not themselves include lending/borrowing; such features appear only in third-party dApps built on top. |
| Audit Quality | 20/100 (low evidence) | No named audit of the core TON base-layer protocol/validator software could be found in these sources; identified audits cover unrelated third-party contracts (e.g., wrapped-token bridge, an unrelated DeFi exchange). |
Summary: The protocol earns fee-based revenue with disclosed but volatile figures, offers no native lending at the base-protocol level, and no audit of the core chain itself could be located in the sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 82/100 | GRAM is described consistently as a functional utility token for fees, staking and payments, not a meme asset. |
| Governance Rights | 40/100 | Only validator-level voting on chain configuration is described; broader token-holder governance rights are not clearly documented. |
| Rewards Distribution | 55/100 | Staking rewards combine a fixed per-block subsidy with a variable transaction-fee share, making the reward source only partially performance-based. |
| Speculation Controls | 40/100 | Vesting schedules on insider/treasury/airdrop allocations provide some dampening, but no broader anti-speculation mechanism is described for the actively-traded token. |
| Asset Backing | 68/100 | The token's value is described as backed by network utility and adoption rather than by any specific tangible asset. |
Summary: GRAM functions as a genuine utility token with mixed fixed/variable staking rewards and limited anti-speculation controls, backed primarily by network utility rather than any hard asset.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 65/100 | Delegation-based, largely non-custodial validator staking with documented minimum stakes and provider support (p2p.org, Kiln) exists. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 32/100 | Rewards mix a fixed block subsidy with variable fee income, leaving the Islamic contract classification (Mudarabah-style vs. fixed/guaranteed) unresolved in these sources. |
| Rewards Structure | 45/100 | Reward structure explicitly combines a fixed block subsidy with a variable fee-based component rather than being purely performance-linked. |
| Documentation | 78/100 | Staking mechanics, validator setup, and risk of loss are documented across official TON docs and staking-provider materials. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | The hybrid fixed-subsidy/variable-fee reward design and validator-loss risk leave a core Shariah question about guaranteed-return-like elements unresolved in the sources. |
Summary: A native, largely non-custodial delegation-based staking system exists with documented mechanics, but its blended fixed-subsidy-plus-fee reward source leaves its Islamic contract classification unresolved.
Overall Assessment: Gram/TON is a legitimate, widely-used blockchain infrastructure project whose main compliance concerns are a historically insider-weighted launch, growing governance centralisation, absence of a base-protocol audit, and an unresolved staking-reward classification rather than any inherently haram design.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar