Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Power Protocol involve interest?
Power Protocol's disclosed model centers on in-game utility, buybacks, sinks, and treasury growth rather than lending or interest income. No fixed-interest instrument is described anywhere in the base protocol. On this narrow criterion, POWER does not exhibit direct riba characteristics, though treasury composition remains undisclosed.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 47.9/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Power Protocol avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Sources describe revenue flowing from ecosystem usage — buybacks, token sinks, and treasury growth tied to Fableborne activity and NFT integration — rather than interest-bearing lending or debt instruments. No mention is made of the treasury holding interest-bearing bonds, money-market positions, or similar riba-generating assets, but treasury composition itself is not disclosed in available documentation. Absent evidence of interest income, the revenue model itself does not appear riba-based, though the opacity around treasury holdings means this cannot be fully verified and warrants caution from investors seeking certainty on this point.
Staking rewards are paid in seasonal $POWER distributions drawn from a dedicated allocation — a 4%-of-supply "Kingdom staking rewards" pool — rather than a fixed interest rate promised on deposited capital. This structure resembles a variable, emission-funded reward rather than classic riba, since payouts are not guaranteed principal-plus-interest. However, because rewards come from a pre-allocated token pool rather than a transparently disclosed share of actual protocol revenue or profit, it functions more like a subsidized incentive program than a genuine profit-sharing arrangement, which is a tokenomics quality concern rather than a riba one.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Power Protocol involve?
Power Protocol carries substantial uncertainty, stemming less from the concept itself and more from disclosure gaps and a documented trust failure. Named leadership and real-world gaming integration reduce some ambiguity, but the reported 90% crash and concentrated launch supply significantly increase it. On balance, the uncertainty here is material and investors should treat it as a live risk factor rather than a resolved one.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 37.3/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
The founding team is named and credentialed — Kam Punia (ex-Konami), Tamara Slavskaya (ex-Pixonic), Sëmen Samusev (ex-ZeptoLab), and Maria Gillies — which is a positive transparency signal, though one tracker inconsistently lists "no team information available." Open-source status and on-chain governance for the base protocol are not established in available sources. More seriously, launch distribution concentration (reportedly 82.5% team-controlled supply against a 2.8% real float) combined with the documented transfer of 30 million team-linked POWER to exchanges before a 90% crash represents a severe, evidenced disclosure and trust failure that substantially raises uncertainty for holders.
No audit unambiguously covering Power Protocol's own token or staking contracts could be confirmed in available research; a Halborn report found near the project's documentation actually addresses a different product ("Substance Exchange V3"), leaving the core POWER contracts effectively unaudited from what is verifiable. Staking mechanics are also thinly documented — custodial versus non-custodial status, lock-up terms, and slashing conditions are not specified. This combination of an unconfirmed audit trail and incomplete risk disclosure is a genuine gharar concern that should be named plainly rather than assumed resolved by the project's gaming partnerships.
Maysir — Does Power Protocol involve gambling or speculation?
Power Protocol is not designed purely as a speculative meme instrument; it has disclosed gaming utility through Fableborne and NFT integration. However, its post-launch trading behavior — including a suspected insider-driven 90% crash — displays the volatility and speculative dynamics associated with maysir-like conditions. The underlying design is utility-oriented, but market conduct around it warrants real caution.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 41/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Power Protocol is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
While Power Protocol carries genuine in-game utility rather than existing solely as a meme, the events following its launch mirror gambling-like dynamics: a concentrated launch supply, a promotional push, and a subsequent 90% price collapse tied to team-associated wallet movements. When token value swings this violently on thin float and opaque insider activity rather than gradual usage-driven demand, secondary-market trading takes on a speculative, zero-sum character resembling maysir, regardless of the protocol's stated productive purpose in gaming infrastructure.
On the utility side, live integration in a shipped game (Fableborne), a named team with industry experience, and $15.4M in institutional backing point to real economic activity rather than pure speculation. Weighed against this is the extreme volatility, concentrated launch ownership, and the documented rug-pull-style crash, which together suggest that near-term secondary trading has been dominated by speculative positioning rather than utility-driven demand. Investors should recognize both dimensions: legitimate underlying use exists, but current market behavior leans heavily speculative and should be approached with corresponding caution.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 60/100 | Team members are named with specific, checkable gaming-industry credentials across multiple sources, though one tracker contradicts this by listing no team info. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 12/100 | Sources directly report a suspected rug pull, with team-linked wallets moving 30 million tokens to exchanges and causing a 90% crash. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 60/100 | The token has a documented live use case as in-game currency in a released game with reported retention metrics, indicating genuine (not purely hype-driven) utility. |
| Ethical Practices | 70/100 | The protocol's own design is a gaming/entertainment rewards layer with no stated engagement in a prohibited industry, though full game mechanics (e.g. any gambling-like elements) are not detailed in the sources. |
Summary: The team is publicly named with relevant gaming credentials, but the project is directly implicated in a suspected insider-driven rug pull that erased most of the token's value.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 68/100 | The base protocol operates in gaming/entertainment infrastructure, a sector not inherently prohibited, but the sources give no granular detail on all activities it touches. |
| Transaction Fees | 40/100 (low evidence) | Sources do not explain whether transaction fees are burned, retained, or distributed, so no determination on riba-like extraction can be made. |
| Treasury Assets | 40/100 (low evidence) | Treasury asset composition (e.g. whether interest-bearing instruments are held) is not disclosed in the sources. |
| Revenue Model | 55/100 | Revenue is described loosely as coming from buybacks, sinks, staking and treasury growth with no mention of interest-based income, but detail is thin. |
| Transparency | 48/100 | A whitepaper and roadmap exist and are publicly accessible, but there is no confirmation of open-source code repositories or full technical disclosure. |
| Governance | 28/100 (low evidence) | No governance structure or holder voting rights for the base protocol are described in the sources. |
| Launch Fairness | 20/100 | One source states the team controlled 82.5% of circulating supply at launch, leaving only a 2.8% real public float, indicating an unfair launch structure. |
| Token Distribution | 45/100 | Allocation percentages are clearly documented (Community 37.2%, Ecosystem 28%, Investors ~16.15%, Team 9.23%, Liquidity 5%, Advisors 4.42%), showing a broad nominal split but notable insider/investor concentration. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 38/100 | Despite real in-game utility, the ecosystem shows heavy speculative promotion and a rug-pull-driven crash, indicating speculation currently dominates over stable utility-driven value. |
Summary: Power Protocol operates as a gaming/entertainment infrastructure layer with a live integration in Fableborne, but shows heavy insider control at launch and limited disclosure of fee, treasury and governance mechanics.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 58/100 | No interest/lending-based revenue is mentioned, but the actual revenue mechanics are not fully detailed. |
| Financial Status | 15/100 | The token suffered a severe, insider-linked 90% price crash, directly evidencing financial instability. |
| Interest Assessment | 70/100 | No lending, borrowing, or interest feature is described as part of the base protocol itself in these sources, though absence of evidence is not the same as explicit confirmation. |
| Audit Quality | 15/100 | An ambiguous Halborn audit report referencing "Substance Exchange" appears near the project's documentation but cannot be confirmed as an audit of Power Protocol's own contracts; no clearly attributed, dated audit of the core protocol was found. |
Summary: The project attracted substantial investment and has real usage data, but has experienced extreme volatility and no confirmed audit of its own core contracts was found in the available sources.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 55/100 | The whitepaper frames POWER as a multi-purpose utility token, but real-world trading behavior shows significant speculative characteristics. |
| Governance Rights | 48/100 (low evidence) | No information establishes whether POWER holders have any governance rights, so this cannot be confirmed either way. |
| Rewards Distribution | 38/100 | Staking rewards appear to be drawn from a fixed, pre-allocated "seasonal rewards" pool rather than clearly tied to variable protocol performance. |
| Speculation Controls | 33/100 | Vesting cliffs exist on paper, but the documented insider token dump shows these controls did not prevent large-scale speculative sell pressure. |
| Asset Backing | 50/100 | The token is described as backed by ecosystem utility (in-game currency, NFT purchasing power) rather than a hard asset, but this is only loosely detailed. |
Summary: POWER is designed as a utility token for gaming and infrastructure rather than governance, with staking rewards apparently drawn from a fixed allocation pool rather than clearly performance-linked revenue.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 35/100 (low evidence) | Sources confirm a staking feature exists but give no detail on custodial status, delegation model, or lock-up terms. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 25/100 (low evidence) | No information classifies the staking mechanism under any Islamic contract structure, leaving it unclassifiable from these sources. |
| Rewards Structure | 35/100 | Rewards appear to be sourced from a dedicated pre-set token pool rather than clearly described as variable and tied to real protocol activity. |
| Documentation | 25/100 (low evidence) | Only a brief marketing-level mention of staking exists; no detailed terms, risk disclosures, or documentation were found. |
| Shariah Alignment | 25/100 (low evidence) | With no classification, undocumented terms, and reward source ambiguity, a core Shariah question about the staking mechanism remains unresolved. |
Summary: A staking feature is referenced for seasonal rewards, but no details on custody, lock-up, slashing, or contract classification are available in the sources.
Overall Assessment: Power Protocol combines genuine gaming utility with serious unresolved concerns, including a suspected rug pull, launch-time centralisation, and thin documentation on audits and staking mechanics.
Scoring note: Meme coin: maysir-capped (C13=38); score already below the cap.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar