Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Incrypt involve interest?
Incrypt shows no evidence of interest-bearing mechanisms, lending pools, or debt instruments within its own protocol design. Its revenue comes from NFT pack sales, subscriptions, and in-platform purchases rather than interest income. On riba specifically, Incrypt appears clean, though the absence of treasury disclosure means this conclusion rests on silence rather than confirmed clean design.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 40/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Incrypt avoids interest-based mechanisms.
No source discloses how Incrypt's treasury is composed or invested, nor whether proceeds from NFT pack sales, subscriptions, or giveaway-linked purchases are held in interest-bearing instruments. The revenue model described is purchase-based (card packs, memberships, in-game items) rather than yield-based, which is a positive sign. However, the total absence of treasury and reserve disclosure means Muslim investors cannot verify whether idle funds are parked in interest-generating accounts. This is an unknown rather than a confirmed riba exposure, but it is a gap worth flagging given the lack of transparency around token backing.
The core business model is a gaming and NFT marketplace: users spend INC on collectible card packs, tiered memberships, and eventually in-game items for a planned RPG/MMO. There is no native lending, borrowing, or credit facility built into Incrypt itself. Any lending or margin activity involving INC-adjacent liquidity would occur only on third-party Solana DeFi platforms such as Solend, Kamino, or MarginFi, which are separate protocols with their own independent Shariah profiles and are not part of Incrypt's own design or intended function.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Incrypt involve?
Our assessment of Incrypt on this principle is set out below.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 24.5/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Transparency is a significant weakness. Multiple LinkedIn and corporate sources referencing "Incrypt" describe entirely different ventures (an AI DeFi project, a BSC oracle, a 2017 London fintech, a mining operation) that do not match the actual gaming/NFT/RPG platform behind the INC token. After discarding these mismatches, the actual project has no verifiable, credentialed founding team identifiable in available sources. No open-source code repositories, governance structure, or launch/vesting details are disclosed anywhere. This leaves investors reliant almost entirely on promotional marketing material rather than substantive documentation.
No audit of the Incrypt platform or its smart contracts was found in any source. Audits referenced in adjacent research pertain to unrelated projects, such as Jito and Token-2022, or to core Solana infrastructure generally, not to Incrypt specifically. This means the contracts governing NFT pack purchases, the "3x REV model," and giveaway entries have not been independently verified. The "3x REV model" itself is described only in marketing language, with no clarity on whether the multiplier is fixed, funded from real revenue, or variable. An unaudited protocol with undisclosed mechanics is a genuine gharar concern that should be named plainly rather than assumed benign.
Maysir — Does Incrypt involve gambling or speculation?
Incrypt combines genuine platform utility with features that lean toward speculation and chance. The clearest concern is a purchase-linked weekly BTC giveaway, which functions as a lottery entry mechanism tied to buying INC or its NFT packs. Combined with thin liquidity and heavy speculative marketing, this pushes the maysir profile toward caution rather than comfort.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 29.5/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Incrypt is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Incrypt does describe genuine functional use: INC is spent to acquire NFT trading cards, unlock membership tiers, and eventually purchase items within a planned RPG/MMO game. This purchase-for-utility model is not inherently gambling, since users are exchanging tokens for actual digital goods and platform access rather than staking value purely on random outcomes. If Incrypt's utility layer operated in isolation, without the giveaway and pure appreciation framing, it would sit closer to an ordinary digital-goods marketplace, which is a permissible commercial structure in principle.
Against this utility sits a promotional structure that explicitly markets INC for speculative appreciation and awards BTC giveaway entries tied to purchase volume, a chance-based reward layered directly onto commercial activity. Reported 24-hour trading volumes ranging from roughly $57,000 to $943,000, with one liquidity pool only two days old at time of snapshot, point to a small, immature, and highly volatile market where price action is likely driven more by speculative flipping than platform adoption. The genuine utility exists, but the lottery mechanic and speculative marketing are prominent enough that they cannot be dismissed as incidental.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 15/100 | No verifiable named team surfaces for the actual gaming/NFT INC project once same-named unrelated ventures are excluded, suggesting an effectively anonymous team for this specific token. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 30/100 | No INC-specific fraud finding exists, but thin liquidity, a newly created pool, and hype-driven marketing are risk signals; broader Solana rug-pull context is not INC-specific. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 35/100 | Sources describe a stated NFT/gaming use case, but it is thin (card packs, giveaways) and heavily wrapped in speculative marketing rather than demonstrated real-world utility. |
| Ethical Practices | 30/100 | The platform's own design ties giveaway "entries" to token purchases, a chance-based/lottery-like reward mechanic built into the coin's own use case, raising a maysir-adjacent concern. |
Summary: The actual Solana gaming/NFT INC token has no verifiable named team once unrelated same-named "Incrypt" ventures are excluded, and it shows hype-heavy marketing without documented fraud or audit history specific to it.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 40/100 | The core business is gaming/NFTs, not an inherently prohibited sector, but the built-in purchase-linked giveaway mechanic pulls it toward gambling-adjacent design. |
| Transaction Fees | 30/100 (low evidence) | No source describes how INC transaction fees are burned, retained, or distributed. |
| Treasury Assets | 30/100 (low evidence) | No information on treasury composition or holdings was found in any source. |
| Revenue Model | 40/100 | Revenue appears to derive from NFT pack/subscription sales rather than interest, but no detailed revenue model is disclosed. |
| Transparency | 25/100 (low evidence) | No open-source repository, code disclosure, or technical documentation for INC itself appears in the sources. |
| Governance | 20/100 (low evidence) | No governance structure, voting mechanism, or decision-making process for the project is described anywhere. |
| Launch Fairness | 30/100 (low evidence) | No information on launch conditions, pre-mine, or insider allocation was found. |
| Token Distribution | 30/100 (low evidence) | No token distribution breakdown or vesting schedule specific to INC was located in the sources. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 25/100 | Sources explicitly market INC for "speculation and capitalising on potential token appreciation" alongside limited in-platform utility, indicating speculation dominates. |
Summary: Incrypt operates as a Solana-based NFT card-game/RPG platform where INC funds purchases and giveaway entries, but fee handling, treasury, governance, and launch fairness are undocumented in the sources.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 45/100 (low evidence) | No interest-based revenue is described, but the revenue model itself is not clearly disclosed, so absence of riba cannot be confirmed with confidence. |
| Financial Status | 25/100 | Reported trading volumes are small and volatile and at least one pool was only days old, indicating an unstable, immature market. |
| Interest Assessment | 75/100 | The platform is described as a gaming/NFT ecosystem, not a lending/borrowing protocol, though this is inferred rather than explicitly confirmed absent. |
| Audit Quality | 10/100 (low evidence) | No named audit firm or audit report for the Incrypt/INC platform appears anywhere in the sources; audits found relate to unrelated Solana infrastructure. |
Summary: The project shows thin, volatile trading activity, an undisclosed revenue model, no native lending/borrowing, and no located security audit for its own contracts.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 35/100 | INC combines genuine platform utility (NFT purchases, subscriptions) with explicit promotion as a speculative, appreciating trading asset. |
| Governance Rights | N/A | No governance rights for INC holders are mentioned, and this appears to be a simple absence rather than a designed feature, so it is treated as neutral. |
| Rewards Distribution | 40/100 | The "3x REV model" reward is mentioned but its funding source and whether it is fixed or variable are not clarified. |
| Speculation Controls | 15/100 | Rather than curbing speculation, the sources show marketing that actively encourages it, plus a purchase-linked giveaway mechanic that heightens speculative/gambling-like behavior. |
| Asset Backing | 20/100 | No asset backing is described; value appears to rest on open-market trading and platform demand rather than disclosed reserves. |
Summary: INC blends limited in-platform utility with strong speculative marketing and a purchase-linked giveaway mechanic, with no clear backing, governance rights, or anti-speculation controls disclosed.
5. Staking Mechanism
Incrypt 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: Based only on the retrieved sources, Incrypt (INC) presents as a thinly documented, speculation-leaning Solana gaming/NFT token with an anonymous team, no audits, and a purchase-tied giveaway feature that raises unresolved concerns, while several core operational and financial details remain simply unknown.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar