Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Gravity (by Galxe) involve interest?
Gravity's core design does not depend on interest-bearing lending or fixed-return debt instruments; its revenue comes from gas and claim fees. However, a yield product called "Latch," built atop Gravity and promoted by the same ecosystem, offers interest-like vault returns sourced from staking and RWA protocols, which warrants separate scrutiny. On balance, the base protocol itself avoids riba, though affiliated products require case-by-case caution.
Assessment: Minor Riba
Score: 85/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Gravity (by Galxe) avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Gravity/Galxe's revenue is fee-based, generated from gas costs and tiered quest-claim fees, totaling roughly $1.7 million gross over two years, with the bulk retained as treasury rather than distributed to holders (only ~$3,500 passed through) and no burn mechanism reducing supply. This treasury-retention model itself is not inherently riba-based, since it reflects operational fee income rather than interest on loans. However, the "Smart Savings" product (via the Latch protocol) offering disclosed APY on atUSD/atETH vaults sits closer to interest-bearing deposit behavior and should be evaluated independently from the base L1 token.
Staking rewards for G are variable, drawn from a mix of treasury-approved incentive budgets (e.g., a forum-approved 2M GAL + 1M ARB program) and protocol fee revenue, rather than a fixed guaranteed interest rate — a structure more consistent with permissible profit/participation-based returns than riba. A subscription tier ("Galxe+") boosts staking rewards by 20-50%, which is a paid-access enhancement rather than a fixed interest promise. Because reward levels float with treasury allocations and network activity rather than being contractually fixed, this leans toward the variable, performance-based category generally viewed as permissible, though exact terms remain thinly documented.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Gravity (by Galxe) involve?
Gravity carries moderate uncertainty: the team and backers are well-documented, but audit coverage and governance centralization are notably underdocumented. This asymmetry — strong identity transparency paired with weak technical/security disclosure — is the main driver of uncertainty here. Overall, gharar is present but is more a documentation gap than an inherent design flaw.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 51.3/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
The founding team is named and verifiable: Harry Zhang and Charles Wayn (also Galxe co-founders), with Wayn's prior venture DLive having been acquired by BitTorrent, and ecosystem lead Patrick Young publicly identifiable. RootData confirms a full named team and blue-chip VC backers including Dragonfly, Multicoin, Coinbase Ventures, HashKey, and Solana Ventures. Code is open-source via the gravity-sdk GitHub repository. This level of identity and backer transparency meaningfully reduces gharar relative to anonymous or unverifiable projects, even though token allocation percentages are reported inconsistently across trackers.
No named, dated audit of the Gravity L1 chain or G token contracts appears in available sources; CertiK explicitly states "Gravity is not audited by CertiK" and separately rates its code security as only middling. Galxe's own Quest smart contracts were audited by SlowMist and CertiK, but that coverage does not extend to the base chain itself. This absence of a comprehensive L1-level audit is a genuine gharar concern that should be named plainly, alongside CertiK's flag of retained, non-renounced owner privileges — both increase uncertainty around technical risk and governance control.
Maysir — Does Gravity (by Galxe) involve gambling or speculation?
Gravity is not designed as a gambling or wagering mechanism; it is an infrastructure chain supporting loyalty, identity, and quest-reward applications with hundreds of millions of recorded transactions. Secondary-market price volatility exists, as with any traded token, but this reflects normal market speculation rather than a maysir-designed product. The chain's own function is productive rather than chance-based.
Assessment: Minor Maysir (Incidental)
Score: 70/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Gravity (by Galxe) is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Gravity provides genuine utility as an EVM-compatible Layer-1 chain powering Galxe's Quest, Passport, and Compass products, with G serving as the gas token paying tiered claim fees for loyalty rewards. With over 70,000 stakers and substantial real transaction volume, the network supports actual economic activity — identity verification, loyalty engagement, and reward distribution — rather than functioning as a betting or chance-based mechanism. This productive, usage-driven design distinguishes it clearly from maysir-style instruments whose payouts depend purely on chance.
Like most actively traded tokens, G experiences price volatility and multi-million-dollar daily trading volume on secondary markets, and some holders undoubtedly speculate on price movement rather than engage with the underlying loyalty ecosystem. This trading behavior, however, is a feature of open markets generally and is not something the protocol itself is designed to encourage or exploit. Weighed against demonstrable network usage, staking participation, and fee-generating activity, Gravity's own design leans toward genuine utility rather than a speculation-first product, though secondary-market conduct remains outside the protocol's control.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 78/100 | Founders are named, credentialed, and traceable across LinkedIn and RootData with a verifiable prior track record. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 62/100 | No fraud, hack, or rug-pull evidence specific to Gravity/Galxe was found, though a third-party scan flags some centralization/owner-privilege signals. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 78/100 | Gravity is an operating Layer-1 chain with real transaction volume powering Galxe's loyalty/identity ecosystem, not a hype-only token. |
| Ethical Practices | 82/100 | The base protocol is neutral blockchain infrastructure with no haram-industry design; an ecosystem yield product exists but is a separate layer, not the chain's own core design. |
Summary: The Gravity team is publicly named, credentialed, and linked to a real, actively used blockchain project with no fraud or regulatory action found against it in these sources.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | The core business is Layer-1 blockchain infrastructure, not a prohibited sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 72/100 | Fees are standard gas/claim fees with no interest-like extraction; most revenue is retained as treasury rather than burned or fully distributed. |
| Treasury Assets | 42/100 (low evidence) | Treasury asset composition (e.g., whether interest-bearing holdings are held) is not disclosed in the sources. |
| Revenue Model | 78/100 | Disclosed revenue comes from transaction/claim fees, not interest-based lending. |
| Transparency | 78/100 | Code and node software are open-source on GitHub with public documentation. |
| Governance | 48/100 | A DAO governance structure is claimed and forum activity exists, but a security scan documents retained owner privileges and non-renounced ownership. |
| Launch Fairness | 35/100 | The token launched via a DAO-approved 1:60 migration with a large majority of supply unlocked at TGE to a Foundation allocation rather than a broad public sale. |
| Token Distribution | 38/100 | Disclosed allocation tables show heavy concentration in Foundation/Insider/Team buckets versus a smaller community share. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 55/100 | The token has genuine gas/governance/staking utility, but market trading behavior versus fee-revenue scale suggests meaningful speculative demand. |
Summary: Gravity is an open-source Layer-1 blockchain built by Galxe for its loyalty/identity ecosystem, with fee-based revenue, DAO-style governance tempered by documented centralization signals, and an insider-heavy token launch and distribution.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 78/100 | Revenue sources documented are fee-based, not interest-based. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | Reported revenue is modest in absolute terms and has declined sharply quarter-over-quarter. |
| Interest Assessment | 65/100 | The base Layer-1 protocol itself does not run native lending/interest markets; an APY-bearing vault product exists but is described as a separate protocol built on top of the chain. |
| Audit Quality | 25/100 | A named tracker explicitly states the chain is not audited by that firm, and no dated audit of the Gravity L1/G token contracts by a reputable firm is found in these sources. |
Summary: Protocol revenue is modest and fee-based with no confirmed independent audit of the chain itself, while an ecosystem-level yield product (built on, not within, the base protocol) offers interest-bearing vaults worth noting factually.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 75/100 | G is described with concrete utility functions (gas, payments, staking, governance) rather than as a purely speculative meme token. |
| Governance Rights | 55/100 | Holder governance via "G DAO" is documented with forum proposal activity, tempered by noted centralization of owner control. |
| Rewards Distribution | 62/100 | Rewards are variable, sourced from fee revenue and treasury-funded incentive budgets rather than a fixed guaranteed rate. |
| Speculation Controls | 33/100 | Beyond standard multi-year vesting cliffs, no dedicated anti-speculation mechanisms are described. |
| Asset Backing | 38/100 | No reserve-asset backing is disclosed; value rests on network utility and treasury-directed incentives. |
Summary: G functions as a genuine multi-purpose utility token for gas, governance, and staking, though it lacks strong anti-speculation controls or hard-asset backing.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 55/100 | Native PoS staking with restaking integrations is described, but custody model, lock-up, and slashing terms are not detailed. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 38/100 (low evidence) | The sources contain no discussion classifying the staking arrangement under any Islamic contract (e.g., Mudarabah/Wakalah), leaving this unresolved. |
| Rewards Structure | 50/100 | Rewards are said to be funded from fee revenue and treasury programs with subscription-tier boosts, but the precise structure and guarantees are not fully specified. |
| Documentation | 35/100 (low evidence) | Detailed staking terms such as lock-up periods, unstaking windows, and slashing risk are not documented in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | Uncertainty (gharar) remains around reward structure, custody, and contract classification, leaving a core Shariah question unresolved rather than clearly settled. |
Summary: Gravity has a native staking mechanism tied to network security and governance, but the sources leave custody terms, lock-ups, slashing, and Islamic contract classification largely undocumented.
Overall Assessment: Gravity presents as a legitimate, team-transparent infrastructure project with genuine utility, but unresolved audit gaps, distribution concentration, and thin staking documentation leave several Shariah-relevant questions open rather than answered.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar