Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does InfiniteHash involve interest?
InfiniteHash's disclosed design centers on Bitcoin mining hashrate contribution and Bittensor subnet emissions, not lending or interest-bearing instruments. No riba-based revenue stream, interest-bearing treasury holding, or credit-market function is described in the available sources. On this basis, the core protocol appears free of interest-based mechanics, though the absence of detailed treasury disclosures leaves some residual uncertainty rather than an affirmative riba finding.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 68.8/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well InfiniteHash avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Revenue for InfiniteHash derives from two disclosed sources: ASIC hashrate contributed to a decentralised Bitcoin mining pool, and Bittensor subnet emissions paid out in TAO. A portion of proceeds flows through a wallet nicknamed "The Chef" into a buyback-and-burn mechanism that purchases and destroys TAO. Neither mechanism, as described, involves interest-bearing deposits, bond-like yield, or fixed-return lending. No treasury composition or reserve-asset disclosure was found, so it cannot be confirmed whether idle funds are held in interest-bearing instruments, but nothing in the sourced material indicates riba-based income.
The core business model — mining infrastructure plus Lightning payment rails for an emerging AI-agent economy — is fundamentally a service and infrastructure model rather than a credit or lending business. Miners are scored and rewarded for genuine computational contribution, not for depositing capital at interest. No lending pools, borrowing facilities, collateralized debt mechanisms, or interest-bearing partnerships are described anywhere in the sourced material. The subnet's function is positioned squarely as mining/payments infrastructure, not as a credit market, which supports the absence of a riba structure at the protocol's core.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does InfiniteHash involve?
Gharar is elevated for InfiniteHash primarily through informational opacity: no confirmed audit, no named founders, and thin trading data with an 858% daily price swing on modest volume. What reduces uncertainty is the public GitHub codebase and a real, stated technical purpose (mining plus Lightning infrastructure) rather than pure hype. On balance, the uncertainty here is meaningful and warrants caution pending better disclosure.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 49.1/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Transparency is mixed. Backend Developers Ltd, the operating entity, has a track record via Subnet-12 (ComputeHorde), lending some operational credibility, and a community contributor ("Rhef") is informally referenced. However, no named founder or executive biography could be located across the sources reviewed, and governance is centralized around the operator with no independent token-holder governance process described. The codebase is publicly available on GitHub, which is a genuine transparency positive, but the combination of anonymous leadership and undocumented governance leaves a material disclosure gap for prospective investors evaluating accountability.
No security audit specific to InfiniteHash (SN89) could be confirmed. The audit firms appearing in the broader search — Halborn, Trail of Bits, Neodyme, OtterSec, Zellic, Quantstamp — were all tied to unrelated projects such as Substance Exchange, zeta-chain, and Solana/anza-xyz, not to this subnet. This is a plain, unresolved gharar concern: an unaudited protocol handling mining rewards and payment infrastructure carries unverified smart-contract and operational risk. Additionally, no details on pre-mine fairness, treasury composition, or vesting were found, compounding the documentation gap.
Maysir — Does InfiniteHash involve gambling or speculation?
InfiniteHash is not designed as a gambling or purely speculative instrument; its stated function is decentralised Bitcoin mining and Lightning payment infrastructure tied to real computational contribution. What increases speculative risk is the token's thin, volatile secondary market rather than the protocol's own design. Judged on its own design, the maysir concern is secondary to genuine utility, though volatile trading behaviour by third parties warrants caution.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 56.2/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether InfiniteHash is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
InfiniteHash's utility is grounded in productive activity: miners contribute real ASIC hashrate to a Bitcoin mining pool and are scored against actual computational output, with rewards distributed in TAO tied to genuine network participation. The parallel Lightning Network payment-infrastructure goal, aimed at supporting an AI-agent economy, is a further concrete technical use case rather than branding built around hype or memes. This productive, work-based reward structure — value tied to verifiable computational contribution — meaningfully distinguishes InfiniteHash from a zero-sum wagering instrument.
Weighed against this genuine utility is secondary-market behaviour showing speculative characteristics: CoinGecko data cited an 858% single-day price move on roughly $512,621 in 24-hour volume, indicating a thin, volatile market prone to sharp swings. Such volatility reflects trading conduct rather than the protocol's design, and per the principle that misuse by third parties should not itself condemn an asset, this does not override the coin's legitimate mining/payments utility. Still, prospective investors should recognize that thin liquidity can amplify speculative price action independent of underlying network fundamentals.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 40/100 | Backend Developers Ltd is named with a prior-project track record, but sources explicitly note no individual founders or executive bios were found. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 60/100 | No fraud, hack, or rug-pull indicators specific to SN89 were found, but absence of negative reports is not strong positive confirmation of safety. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 78/100 | Sources describe a concrete technical use case: decentralised Bitcoin mining pool plus Lightning payment infrastructure for AI-agent payments. |
| Ethical Practices | 88/100 | The protocol's own design is Bitcoin mining and payment infrastructure, sectors not flagged as haram in the sources. |
Summary: The project is run by a named operating company with a prior track record but lacks individually identified founders, and no fraud or regulatory issues specific to it were found.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | The base protocol operates in Bitcoin mining and Lightning payment infrastructure, a legitimate technology sector per the sources. |
| Transaction Fees | 72/100 | A buyback-and-burn mechanism funded by protocol proceeds is described, which is fee-recycling rather than interest-like extraction, though full fee-flow detail is limited. |
| Treasury Assets | 50/100 (low evidence) | No information on treasury composition or whether any treasury holdings are interest-bearing was found in the sources. |
| Revenue Model | 70/100 | Revenue appears tied to mining/emissions rather than lending, but the sources do not explicitly rule out other revenue mechanics. |
| Transparency | 78/100 | The project's GitHub repository is public, indicating an open-source codebase. |
| Governance | 32/100 | Operations appear centralised around a single operator (Backend Developers Ltd) with validator scoring, and no token-holder governance process is described. |
| Launch Fairness | 48/100 (low evidence) | No information on launch fairness, pre-mine, or initial distribution mechanics was found in the sources. |
| Token Distribution | 45/100 | Only a partial tokenomics figure (a ~16.11% burn allocation) was found; full distribution breakdown across team/investors/community is not established. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 55/100 | The token is tied to real mining/infrastructure utility, but market data showing an 858% single-day volume spike suggests notable speculative trading activity alongside the utility case. |
Summary: InfiniteHash operates an open-source, mining-and-Lightning-infrastructure subnet with a buyback-and-burn fee mechanism, though governance is centralised and distribution/launch details are largely undisclosed.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 72/100 | Revenue is described as coming from mining/subnet emissions rather than interest, though this is inferred from the project description rather than an explicit statement. |
| Financial Status | 38/100 | Market data shows a thin, highly volatile market (large single-day volume swings), indicating limited financial stability. |
| Interest Assessment | 82/100 | The base protocol is described purely as a mining/payments network with no lending or borrowing function mentioned. |
| Audit Quality | 8/100 | No audit specific to InfiniteHash (SN89) appears anywhere in the sources; all audit-related results found concern unrelated projects. |
Summary: The token trades in a small, highly volatile market with revenue tied to mining/emissions rather than interest, and no security audit for this specific project could be found.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 62/100 | The token is tied to mining rewards and infrastructure activity, suggesting genuine utility rather than pure meme design, though documentation is limited. |
| Governance Rights | 35/100 (low evidence) | No token-holder governance rights are described in the sources, and it is unclear whether this is by design or simply undocumented. |
| Rewards Distribution | 80/100 | Rewards are variable, tied to actual hash contribution and Bittensor emissions rather than a fixed payout. |
| Speculation Controls | 38/100 | Beyond a stated burn allocation, no explicit anti-speculation design (vesting limits, transfer caps, etc.) is documented. |
| Asset Backing | 42/100 | Token value appears linked to mining output, network emissions, and the burn mechanism rather than any defined reserve or hard asset backing. |
Summary: The token is utility-oriented with variable, activity-based rewards, but lacks documented governance rights, anti-speculation controls, or clear asset backing.
5. Staking Mechanism
InfiniteHash 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: InfiniteHash presents a genuine mining/payments-infrastructure use case with reasonable transparency of code, but gaps in founder identification, audits, distribution details, and staking documentation leave several Shariah-relevant questions unresolved from the available evidence.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar