Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does IMPT involve interest?
IMPT's core business — commissions on retail, hotel, and travel bookings channeled into carbon-credit purchases — is fee-based commerce, not lending or interest income. However, its staking/membership programme advertises fixed percentage yields tied to a "DeFi pool," raising a genuine riba concern that Muslim investors should weigh carefully before participating in that specific feature.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 51.4/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well IMPT avoids interest-based mechanisms.
IMPT's revenue derives from an average ~5% commission on retail, hotel, and travel transactions, routed toward funding environmental/carbon offset projects. This is a fee-for-service model tied to real commerce rather than interest-bearing lending. Sources found no evidence that treasury funds are held in interest-bearing instruments or that the base protocol operates as a lending/borrowing market. The $30M growth round reported in 2025 is described as equity-style investment funding, not a debt or interest arrangement. On this core revenue layer, no direct riba exposure was identified in the available documentation.
The staking tiers ("Standard" 10%, "Gold" 12%) quote fixed "blended DeFi pool APY" for 6-12 month lock-ups. Fixed, pre-stated percentage returns are structurally closer to interest than to a variable Mudarabah-style profit share, especially since the yield is explicitly sourced partly from third-party DeFi pools rather than IMPT's own commerce revenue. Available disclosures do not clarify custody, risk-bearing, or whether returns fluctuate with actual pool performance. Absent clearer variable profit-and-loss sharing language, this staking feature should be treated as a riba-risk area rather than a clean, Shariah-compliant reward mechanism.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does IMPT involve?
Uncertainty in IMPT is moderate: the team, mission, and audit history are documented, but yield mechanics and some tokenomics details remain vague. This mix of transparency and gaps produces a measured, rather than severe, gharar profile.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 51.6/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
IMPT's leadership team is publicly named with verifiable professional backgrounds: CEO Denis Creighton, CTO/Founder Mike English, CLO Hugh Phelan, and CFO Lorna Mason, each with traceable LinkedIn history. This is a meaningfully lower-uncertainty setup than anonymous-team projects. A public whitepaper/gitbook exists, though sources found no explicit confirmation of open-source code repositories. Governance is centralized under this corporate leadership with no DAO or token-voting mechanism described, meaning decision-making transparency depends on continued corporate disclosure rather than on-chain, community-verifiable processes.
A single smart contract audit by Hacken OÜ (September-October 2022) found no critical vulnerabilities and scored the contracts 8.9/10, but no later or additional audits were identified in the available sources — meaning current code, especially any updates since 2022, lacks independent recent verification. Staking terms disclose lock-up length and headline APY but omit custody arrangements, slashing conditions, and the exact composition of the underlying "DeFi pool" generating yield. This gap in reward-mechanism disclosure is a specific, named gharar concern investors should factor in before staking.
Maysir — Does IMPT involve gambling or speculation?
IMPT's base function — converting real purchases into tradeable, retirable carbon credits — is productive commerce, not a wagering mechanism. The main speculative element sits in secondary-market trading behavior around the token itself, which is common to most listed crypto assets and not unique to IMPT's design.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 60.3/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether IMPT is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
IMPT ties token utility to a functioning marketplace: users earn IMPT-linked rewards from real shopping, hotel, and travel bookings, then use tokens to purchase NFT-minted carbon credits that are verifiably retired on-chain, with commissions funding actual environmental projects. This represents tangible economic activity — commerce, environmental offsetting, and record-keeping — rather than a zero-sum bet on price movement. The claimed integration with millions of hotels and tens of thousands of retailers, if accurate, further reinforces a genuine-utility orientation distinct from gambling-style speculation.
Against this utility, reported daily trading volume (~$31K) alongside roughly 16,700 holders suggests thin secondary-market liquidity relative to the project's funding claims, an environment where price swings can be driven more by speculative trading than by underlying platform usage. This volatility and thin-liquidity pattern is a market-behavior concern rather than a flaw in IMPT's own design or purpose. On balance, the protocol's stated function remains utility-driven, though investors should recognize that secondary-market speculation, not the platform's core design, is where maysir-like risk primarily resides.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 78/100 | Leadership team (CEO, CTO, CLO, CFO) is named with public credentials and LinkedIn profiles. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 65/100 | No fraud or rug-pull reports specific to IMPT were found, and positive signals (audit, funding round) exist, but absence of negative news is not conclusive proof of safety. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 72/100 | Sources describe concrete integrations with hotels, retailers, and airlines converting purchases into carbon credits. |
| Ethical Practices | 85/100 | The platform's own design centers on carbon offsetting and sustainable commerce, not any prohibited industry. |
Summary: IMPT has a publicly named, credentialed leadership team, a clean 2022 smart contract audit, and no fraud or regulatory action found in these sources, though independent verification of its scale claims remains limited.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | The base protocol is a carbon-credit and loyalty commerce platform, a permissible sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 70/100 | Fees are commission-based (~5% average) funding environmental projects and token burns, not interest extraction. |
| Treasury Assets | 45/100 (low evidence) | Treasury composition beyond "locked reserves" used for burns is not detailed, so interest-bearing holdings cannot be confirmed or excluded. |
| Revenue Model | 70/100 | Revenue is described as coming from retail/travel commissions rather than lending or interest. |
| Transparency | 55/100 | A whitepaper and one audit are public, but no explicit statement of open-source smart contract repositories was found. |
| Governance | 30/100 | A named corporate leadership hierarchy runs the project with no DAO or token-holder voting mechanism described. |
| Launch Fairness | 50/100 | Ecosystem-tranche vesting is documented but full insider-versus-public launch allocation details are not given. |
| Token Distribution | 48/100 | Only the ecosystem allocation (15%/450M of 3B) and its schedule are specified; team/investor splits are not detailed. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 55/100 | Real commerce integrations coexist with promotional "explode"/"investor growth" language, indicating a mixed utility-speculation profile. |
Summary: The protocol runs a carbon-credit and loyalty commerce platform with commission-funded burns and vesting schedules, but governance is centralized under corporate leadership with no decentralized voting described.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 68/100 | A commission-based revenue model is described, not an interest-based one. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | A $30M funding round is reported alongside low reported daily trading volume, giving an unclear overall financial picture. |
| Interest Assessment | 40/100 | The base platform is not a lending protocol, but staking rewards are attributed to a "blended DeFi pool APY," implying some exposure to third-party interest-bearing DeFi activity. |
| Audit Quality | 72/100 | A named audit (Hacken OÜ, Sept–Oct 2022) is documented with a stated 8.9/10 score and no critical findings. |
Summary: Revenue comes from retail/travel commissions rather than lending, one 2022 audit exists, and financial signals (funding round versus trading volume) are mixed and only partially disclosed.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 72/100 | The token functions as the platform's payment/utility currency for the carbon marketplace. |
| Governance Rights | N/A | No token-holder governance rights are mentioned in the sources; this absence is treated as neutral for a utility-focused token. |
| Rewards Distribution | 30/100 | Staking rewards are quoted as fixed percentages (10%/12% "blended DeFi pool APY"), resembling a fixed-return structure rather than variable profit sharing. |
| Speculation Controls | 42/100 | Minimum staking commitment periods (6–12 months) offer mild lock-in, but no other anti-speculation mechanisms are described. |
| Asset Backing | 62/100 | Token value is tied to real carbon-credit retirement and a network of retail/travel partners, giving it utility-based backing. |
Summary: IMPT functions as a utility/payment token backed by real carbon-credit and partner-network activity, but its staking rewards are framed as fixed percentages rather than variable profit shares.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 45/100 | Tiered membership staking with set commitment periods is described, but custody and flexibility details are not disclosed. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 22/100 | Advertised fixed "DeFi pool APY" returns for locked staking resemble a guaranteed interest-like return rather than a clean profit-sharing structure. |
| Rewards Structure | 25/100 | Reward figures are presented as fixed stated percentages (10%/12%) rather than outcomes variably tied to realized activity. |
| Documentation | 40/100 | Commitment length, seat caps, and headline APY are disclosed, but yield sourcing, slashing, and custody terms are not explained. |
| Shariah Alignment | 28/100 | The fixed-rate "DeFi pool APY" staking design leaves an unresolved core question about compatibility with profit-and-loss-sharing Shariah structures. |
Summary: A native staking/membership programme exists with locked commitment tiers and fixed headline APYs, but custody, yield-source composition, and risk disclosures are not fully documented, leaving its Islamic classification unresolved.
Overall Assessment: IMPT appears to be a genuine, non-haram-sector utility project with a transparent team and a passed audit, but its fixed-rate staking rewards and undisclosed treasury/yield details are the main unresolved points for a full Shariah determination.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar