Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Movement involve interest?
Movement's base protocol does not itself embed lending or interest-bearing mechanics; its native function is gas, staking, and settlement infrastructure. No source discloses treasury holdings in interest-bearing instruments. The staking model is variable and performance-linked rather than a fixed-return arrangement, which is a Shariah-favorable structural feature, though closely affiliated ecosystem products raise separate questions.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 37/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Movement avoids interest-based mechanisms.
No source discloses a specific fee-capture mechanism, revenue split, or treasury composition for the Movement protocol beyond stated allocation percentages, and none of the available material describes riba-based income streams or interest-bearing treasury holdings at the base-protocol level. However, the core team has closely curated and even acquired ecosystem infrastructure — including MovePosition (a lending/borrowing market selected via RFP as "canonical"), Avant's yield-bearing savUSD, and the acquired Canopy yield-vault platform — that likely operates on interest-like or leverage-based yield mechanics not detailed in sources, warranting separate scrutiny from the base chain.
Staking rewards on Movement L1 are tied to Proof-of-Stake validator selection proportional to stake, with rewards for "honest validation and block production" rather than a fixed, predetermined rate — a structure more consistent with permissible profit/effort-linked return than riba. Slashing exists in protocol but is stated as "not currently active." The liquid-staking token gMOVE lets stakers redeploy their position as collateral elsewhere, which is efficient but also stacks staking yield atop other DeFi yield layers whose own return mechanics (fixed or variable) are not documented, leaving residual uncertainty about compounded reward structures.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Movement involve?
Movement carries substantial uncertainty stemming less from its stated design than from its post-launch conduct: an alleged insider token dump, leadership turnover, and a corporate rebrand under new management. Open-source code and named founders reduce some ambiguity, while the absence of a base-protocol audit and unclear fee/treasury mechanics increase it. On balance, the uncertainty here is unusually elevated for a project of this scale.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 36.7/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Movement Labs was founded by named individuals, Rushi Manche and Cooper Scanlon, and code is published openly across GitHub and public documentation, which supports baseline transparency. However, co-founder Manche was suspended and terminated and Scanlon resigned following the token-dump controversy, and the company subsequently rebranded to Move Industries under entirely new leadership (Torabi, Liauw, Sheikh). Treasury composition beyond percentage allocations remains undisclosed, and fee-handling mechanics (burn, retain, or distribute) are not described in available sources, leaving material gaps in financial disclosure despite otherwise open development practices.
No dated, named audit of the Movement base protocol itself could be found in available sources — this is a plainly stated gharar concern rather than a minor omission. Halborn security reports appear only for related but distinct products, Substance Exchange and Neutral Trade, while MovePosition claims to be "fully audited" without naming a firm or date. For a protocol handling stablecoin settlement and DeFi integrations, the absence of verifiable, dated third-party audit coverage at the base-chain level represents a genuine and unresolved documentation gap for prospective users and investors.
Maysir — Does Movement involve gambling or speculation?
Movement is not designed as a speculative or gambling instrument; it functions as gas, staking collateral, and network-participation utility within a modular Move-based chain now oriented toward stablecoin settlement. Its productive, infrastructure-oriented design distinguishes it from instruments built primarily for chance-based payoff. That said, secondary-market trading behavior around MOVE has been notably volatile and speculative following the insider-dump controversy.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 37.7/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Movement is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Movement's core function — enabling a Move-language virtual machine across a modular Layer 1/Layer 2 architecture, secured by Ethereum, and increasingly oriented around stablecoin settlement via USDCx — constitutes genuine productive utility rather than a chance-based payoff mechanism. Staking rewards flow from validator work securing the network, and the token underwrites gas and ecosystem participation. This functional grounding in real network activity, rather than a zero-sum wagering structure, is what separates Movement's own design from maysir, even though its market price has behaved erratically.
Weighed against this genuine utility is a documented pattern of speculative, non-fundamental price action: a severe post-listing collapse tied to an alleged coordinated insider dump by a market maker and associated firm, followed by delisting from a major exchange. This behavior reflects speculative excess in secondary markets and governance failure rather than a flaw in the protocol's designed purpose. Consistent with the principle that misuse by third parties does not itself render an asset's own design impermissible, this volatility is a market-conduct concern rather than evidence that Movement was built for gambling.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 35/100 | Founders were named and had traceable professional backgrounds, but both later left under a scandal and termination, undermining ongoing accountability. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 20/100 | Sources describe a documented insider token-dump scheme, an FDV-triggered market-maker sale contract, and an ongoing governance review with potential litigation. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 60/100 | The project builds genuine Move-based blockchain infrastructure and stablecoin/RWA payment rails rather than relying purely on hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 55/100 | The base VM/chain is a generic, non-haram-designed infrastructure layer, though the core team has strategically steered the ecosystem toward interest-based lending and yield products, a factor weighed more heavily elsewhere. |
Summary: The founders were named and credentialed but the leadership subsequently collapsed amid a documented insider token-dump scandal and exchange delisting, raising serious trust concerns.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 55/100 | The core protocol is general-purpose blockchain infrastructure now marketed as a stablecoin/RWA "yield layer," a permissible sector in itself, though tightly coupled to interest-bearing canonical dApps. |
| Transaction Fees | 30/100 (low evidence) | The sources do not explain how transaction fees are handled (burned, retained, or distributed) at the base-protocol level. |
| Treasury Assets | 30/100 (low evidence) | No source discloses the actual composition of Movement's treasury holdings or whether they include interest-bearing instruments. |
| Revenue Model | 35/100 | A specific revenue model is not detailed, and the ecosystem's growing reliance on yield-bearing/lending products suggests some interest-linked revenue exposure. |
| Transparency | 65/100 | Core documentation and code repositories are published openly and are publicly accessible. |
| Governance | 30/100 | Control rests with the Movement Network Foundation/Move Industries corporate entity, and the scandal prompted an internal governance review, evidencing centralization. |
| Launch Fairness | 15/100 | The launch involved a documented insider dump of 66 million tokens and a market-maker contract tied to valuation thresholds, both raising fair-launch concerns. |
| Token Distribution | 35/100 | A substantial share of supply sits with insiders, backers and contributors across multiple reported breakdowns, with percentages inconsistent across sources. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 45/100 | The token has real utility functions (gas, staking) but observed market behavior has been dominated by speculative trading and a sharp post-listing collapse. |
Summary: Movement is an open-source Move-based blockchain infrastructure project that pivoted toward stablecoin/RWA yield rails, but its governance is centralized and its token launch was marred by insider allocation controversy.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 35/100 | No explicit fee-revenue disclosure exists, and ecosystem revenue increasingly touches interest/yield-based products curated by the core team. |
| Financial Status | 25/100 | The token suffered a severe price collapse, leadership departures, and delisting from at least one major exchange, indicating weak financial standing. |
| Interest Assessment | 30/100 | The core team selected a canonical interest-based lending market and integrated/acquired yield-bearing stablecoin and vault products as core ecosystem infrastructure. |
| Audit Quality | 20/100 | No dated, named audit of the Movement base protocol itself is confirmed in the sources; related audits found belong to other distinct products. |
Summary: Revenue, treasury composition, and core-protocol audit details are largely undisclosed, market standing has been weak, and the ecosystem is increasingly intertwined with interest-based lending and yield products.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 55/100 | MOVE is structured as a utility token for gas, staking and ecosystem participation rather than as an explicit meme token. |
| Governance Rights | 25/100 (low evidence) | No source describes specific on-chain governance voting rights conferred to MOVE holders. |
| Rewards Distribution | 45/100 | Validator rewards appear tied to block production activity, implying some variability, but the exact reward formula is not detailed. |
| Speculation Controls | 40/100 | Vesting cliffs exist for major allocations, but these controls did not prevent a documented insider-linked dump shortly after listing. |
| Asset Backing | 30/100 | MOVE is not backed by any disclosed reserve asset; its value depends on network adoption and speculative demand. |
Summary: MOVE is designed as a network-utility token with vesting-based anti-speculation controls, but governance rights and asset backing are thinly documented and the controls failed to prevent an insider dump.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 45/100 | Native PoS staking with an optional liquid-staking token (gMOVE) exists, but lock-up and custodial specifics are not fully detailed. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 35/100 (low evidence) | No source classifies the staking reward arrangement under any Islamic contract framework. |
| Rewards Structure | 45/100 | Rewards are linked to validator activity rather than a stated fixed rate, but no reward formula or APY figures are given. |
| Documentation | 40/100 | Basic staking design and slashing status are documented, but lock-up periods and full risk disclosures are not detailed. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | Inactive slashing reduces one source of gharar, but unresolved questions about reward sourcing and contract classification leave the core issue open. |
Summary: Movement offers native Proof-of-Stake staking with a liquid-staking option, but reward mechanics, lock-up terms, and Islamic-contract classification remain largely undocumented.
Overall Assessment: Movement is a legitimate infrastructure project with real utility, but a documented insider-trading-adjacent scandal, leadership collapse, undisclosed financial/audit details, and growing interest-based ecosystem integration leave meaningful unresolved concerns for Shariah screening.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar