Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does My Lovely Coin involve interest?
My Lovely Coin's core design — a utility token for game purchases, content unlocks, and NGO-treasury voting — does not itself rely on interest-bearing instruments or lending markets. However, its staking mechanic warrants scrutiny for riba-like characteristics. On balance, the protocol is not built around interest income, but the reward structure needs closer examination before Muslim investors can be fully comfortable.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 53.8/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well My Lovely Coin avoids interest-based mechanisms.
MLC's revenue model derives from token sales (private, public, KOL rounds) and in-app purchases, with 15% of in-app purchase revenue earmarked for NGOs via an Environmental Treasury. No sources describe the treasury holding interest-bearing instruments, bonds, or engaging in lending activity. The game itself does not offer a lending or borrowing market at the protocol level. This absence of interest-based revenue streams is a positive from a riba standpoint, though the lack of detailed treasury financial statements means this conclusion rests on absence of evidence rather than explicit confirmation of riba-free treasury management.
The staking feature converts staked MLC into "Diamonds," an in-game currency, accruing passively each minute and convertible back to MLC once a $100 threshold is met. This steady, time-based accrual — rather than one tied to variable protocol revenue, game performance, or shared risk — raises a real concern: it resembles a fixed, guaranteed increment characteristic of riba rather than a profit-and-loss-sharing arrangement. No slashing or risk-bearing mechanism is disclosed. Muslim investors should treat this specific mechanic with caution until its reward-generation source and variability are clarified by the project.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does My Lovely Coin involve?
My Lovely Coin carries a moderate-to-elevated degree of uncertainty, stemming less from anonymity and more from inconsistent documentation and an unverifiable audit status. The named, credentialed team and visible institutional backing reduce one layer of gharar, but unresolved discrepancies in tokenomics increase another. Overall, informational risk is present and should not be dismissed.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 50.5/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Unlike anonymous meme projects, My Lovely Coin names its founder, Clément Le Bras (Mines ParisTech engineer, former Lilo.org co-founder/CEO), along with an Art Director and Lead Game Designer with Candy Crush experience. The project shows institutional ties (Ubisoft Entrepreneurs Lab, Unity's "Unity for Humanity") and a substantial social following, which meaningfully reduces gharar relative to pseudonymous projects. That said, independent verification of team claims beyond LinkedIn-style bios is limited, and a third-party Medium post claiming DAO/dividend governance could not be confirmed as official, adding a layer of unresolved ambiguity around governance disclosures.
No security audit of the My Lovely Coin or My Lovely Planet smart contracts could be located in available research; Halborn audit reports retrieved pertain to unrelated projects (Substance Exchange, ZetaChain, Solana). This must be stated plainly: audit status for MLC itself is unverifiable, which is a genuine gharar concern for a project handling user funds and in-app purchases. Compounding this, sources disagree on total supply (230M vs 350M) and treasury allocation percentages (15%, 28%, 30% cited variously), reflecting documentation inconsistency that investors should weigh carefully before committing capital.
Maysir — Does My Lovely Coin involve gambling or speculation?
My Lovely Coin is not designed as a gambling instrument; it functions as a utility token tied to a game with tangible environmental outcomes. Secondary-market trading of MLC, like any listed token, carries speculative behavior, but this is incidental to the coin's design rather than its purpose. On balance, the project's core function distinguishes it from maysir-oriented instruments.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 64.2/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether My Lovely Coin is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
MLC's primary function is utility: purchasing in-game content, unlocking features, staking for Diamonds, and voting on NGO/Environmental Treasury allocations that direct real-world conservation funding (tree planting, ocean cleanup). This productive linkage between token use and verifiable environmental outcomes — rather than a zero-sum wagering mechanism — distinguishes MLC from gambling-style tokens. The game's design, backed by named professionals with prior credible industry experience (Ubisoft, Unity, Candy Crush), reinforces that MLC's intended purpose is consumption and governance utility, not speculative wagering.
Against this genuine utility must be weighed MLC's presence on exchanges like Gate.io, LBank, KCEX, and MEXC, where daily volumes ranging from roughly $115K to over $1.6M indicate a small-cap token subject to speculative trading typical of newly listed assets. This secondary-market speculation is a feature of crypto markets generally and not unique to MLC's design, so it should not by itself be treated as decisive. Combined with unresolved tokenomics discrepancies and unverifiable audit status, however, investors should approach MLC with measured caution rather than treating trading activity as validation of underlying value.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 78/100 | The founder is named with verifiable credentials and prior ventures, and key creative roles are described, though not all team members are individually named. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 60/100 | No confirmed fraud or rug-pull tied to the project itself was found, but a suspicious third-party "claim rewards" post bearing phishing-style characteristics was identified as a caution flag. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 78/100 | The project ties gameplay to real environmental funding and cites credible partners, giving it clear stated utility beyond speculation. |
| Ethical Practices | 85/100 | The coin's own design is an eco-gaming utility token with no inherent link to a prohibited industry. |
Summary: The project has a named, credentialed founder and institutional backing, with no confirmed fraud tied to the coin itself, though an unverified third-party "rewards" post is a minor caution.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 85/100 | The base protocol is a mobile game tied to environmental funding, not a prohibited business sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 40/100 (low evidence) | The sources do not describe how transaction fees, if any, are handled, burned, or distributed at the protocol level. |
| Treasury Assets | 55/100 | Treasury purposes (environmental, community, operational) are described but no source confirms whether any holdings are interest-bearing. |
| Revenue Model | 75/100 | Revenue described as coming from token sales and in-app purchases with a share donated to NGOs, with no mention of interest-based income. |
| Transparency | 55/100 | A public whitepaper exists, but supply and allocation figures conflict materially across multiple official-adjacent sources. |
| Governance | 50/100 | Token holders reportedly vote on NGO selection and treasury use, but broader DAO governance claims rest only on an unverified third-party post. |
| Launch Fairness | 55/100 | Launch involved private, public, and KOL sale rounds plus a team allocation with documented multi-year vesting, which is typical but not a fully fair/no-premine launch. |
| Token Distribution | 65/100 | Detailed allocation across environmental, community, sale, and team categories shows a reasonably broad distribution, though percentages vary between sources. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 65/100 | The token is designed around in-game utility and environmental funding, though real-world trading activity suggests meaningful speculative use alongside utility. |
Summary: MLC underpins a Polygon-based eco-gaming ecosystem with treasury and vesting structures, but the public documentation shows notable inconsistencies in supply and allocation figures.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 78/100 | Stated revenue streams (sales, in-app purchases) show no interest-based mechanism. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | Trading volume figures suggest a small, moderately liquid market but no financial statements or stability data are available. |
| Interest Assessment | 55/100 | No lending/borrowing market is described at the protocol level, though the staking-for-Diamonds mechanic raises an unresolved question about interest-like accrual. |
| Audit Quality | 20/100 (low evidence) | No audit of the My Lovely Coin or My Lovely Planet smart contracts could be found in these sources; audits located are for unrelated projects. |
Summary: The coin trades on several mid-tier exchanges with modest volume, offers no protocol-level lending or interest, and no security audit of its own contracts could be located in the sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 78/100 | MLC is consistently described as a utility token for in-game purchases, access, and voting rather than a purely speculative token. |
| Governance Rights | 50/100 | Some governance (NGO/treasury voting) is documented, but full DAO-style governance rights are only claimed in an unverified source. |
| Rewards Distribution | 45/100 | Staking rewards are described as passive and time-based rather than clearly variable or performance-linked. |
| Speculation Controls | 60/100 | Long vesting cliffs and a stated fixed supply provide some structural deterrents to short-term speculation. |
| Asset Backing | 40/100 | No hard-asset backing is described; value rests on in-game utility and an NGO-linked treasury rather than reserves. |
Summary: MLC is designed as an in-game utility and limited-governance token with vesting-based anti-speculation controls, though its value backing rests mainly on ecosystem utility rather than hard assets.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 40/100 | The staking flow appears managed through an in-game wallet with limited disclosed terms, suggesting a custodial rather than fully transparent non-custodial design. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 30/100 | The staking-to-Diamonds-to-MLC conversion resembles a time-based guaranteed accrual rather than a clearly classified Mudarabah/Wakalah structure. |
| Rewards Structure | 35/100 | Rewards are described as accruing steadily per minute rather than being explicitly tied to variable protocol revenue or risk-sharing. |
| Documentation | 35/100 | Only a brief whitepaper page describes the staking mechanic, with no detailed risk disclosures, slashing terms, or independent documentation found. |
| Shariah Alignment | 30/100 | The unresolved question of whether the staking reward constitutes a guaranteed increment rather than a genuine profit-share leaves a core Shariah question unaddressed by the available sources. |
Summary: A native, in-game staking mechanism exists that converts staked MLC into a time-based, passively accruing in-game currency, raising an unresolved question about its resemblance to a guaranteed increment.
Overall Assessment: My Lovely Coin presents as a genuine, utility-oriented gaming/environmental project with a credible team, but gaps in audit evidence, documentation consistency, and a Shariah-unclear staking reward structure leave several compliance questions open.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar