Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does XPIN Network involve interest?
XPIN Network's core revenue — eSIM sales, hardware participation, and PayFi transaction fees — is itself free of interest-based income. However, the protocol's own "Incentive Hub" deposit feature is explicitly described as producing "compound interest yield," which is a direct riba concern embedded in the base design. Muslim investors should treat this native deposit-and-yield feature as the disqualifying element requiring avoidance, distinct from the underlying utility business.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 42/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well XPIN Network avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Revenue is generated from eSIM/data-plan sales, PowerLink hardware participation rewards, and PayFi payment fees — all tied to genuine service delivery rather than lending or interest income. No treasury composition is disclosed in available sources, so it cannot be confirmed whether treasury reserves are held in interest-bearing instruments. The absence of disclosed interest-bearing treasury holdings is a mild positive, but the lack of transparency around treasury management itself remains a documentation gap that limits full confidence in the revenue model's cleanliness.
Two reward layers exist: "Node Staking," where rewards scale with staked amount and network usage (a variable, activity-linked structure more compatible with permissible profit-sharing), and the "Token Deposit"/Incentive Hub model, which explicitly promises "compound interest yield" on deposited XPIN. This deposit mechanism is functionally an interest-bearing instrument at the protocol level, sourced from an emissions pool and usage fees rather than genuine trading profit-sharing. Because this feature is native to the base protocol rather than an optional third-party add-on, it represents a core riba concern rather than a peripheral misuse issue.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does XPIN Network involve?
XPIN Network carries meaningful uncertainty stemming from unresolved founder identity, inconsistent public claims, and weak code-security scoring. Genuine DePIN usage metrics reduce some doubt about the project's substance, but disclosure gaps around treasury, contract transparency, and governance mechanics increase risk. On balance, the uncertainty here is elevated enough to warrant caution.
Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)
Score: 40/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Founder identity is inconsistent across sources: a Gate.com page names "RRiva" as Founder/CEO with Roger Li as Co-founder, a Scribd report separately verifies Roger Li via LinkedIn, and a Binance Square post claims the founder is Kosala Himachandra — a claim unsupported elsewhere. Promotional claims of mentorship by CZ and Vitalik appear only in an unsubstantiated wiki article. XPIN itself issued a fraud alert about impersonator accounts, confirming scam activity exists in its ecosystem. Open-source status of the code is unconfirmed, and CertiK rates code security "Poor" (61.80).
One named audit is documented — Beosin, dated January 8, 2025 — but CertiK's Skynet scanner independently flags "Poor" code security, and a third-party scanner notes locked or limited contract transparency. Token allocation figures conflict across sources (20%/40%/16% in one breakdown versus team+investors up to 60% in another), and treasury composition is undisclosed entirely. Incentive Hub deposit terms, lock-up conditions, and governance of "Hub controllers" are not elaborated in official documentation. This combination of a single audit, conflicting tokenomics disclosures, and undocumented deposit-custody terms constitutes a real gharar concern.
Maysir — Does XPIN Network involve gambling or speculation?
XPIN Network is built around tangible connectivity infrastructure — eSIM data plans, hardware nodes, and payment rails — rather than a purely speculative game. That said, its token has shown pronounced price volatility including "20x" rallies described in sourced commentary. The underlying utility case distinguishes it from pure gambling instruments, even as secondary-market trading carries speculative characteristics common to many tokens.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 48.6/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether XPIN Network is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
XPIN Network reports genuine DePIN activity — over 120,000 eSIM users and 350,000 active addresses cited across multiple sources — tied to real connectivity services, PowerLink hardware participation, and PayFi payment processing. This usage-driven model, where token utility is anchored to service redemption, data plans, and node rewards, reflects productive economic activity rather than a zero-sum wagering structure. Such genuine utility is a meaningful distinguishing factor from designs that exist solely for speculative betting.
Against this utility, market data shows a circulating supply of roughly 17.83 billion tokens against a 100 billion total, a market cap near $33.29 million versus a fully diluted valuation near $187.82 million, and commentary describing sharp "euphoria rally" price swings. This large gap between circulating and diluted supply, combined with volatile trading behavior, indicates that secondary-market speculation plays a significant role alongside genuine adoption. As with most tokens, third-party speculative trading does not by itself render the underlying network impermissible, but it is a factor investors should weigh soberly.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 30/100 | Sources give conflicting and unverifiable founder identities (Roger Li/RRiva vs. a separate claim of Kosala Himachandra), undermining confidence in team transparency. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 40/100 | No confirmed hack or rug-pull by the project itself, but a public fraud alert about impersonators and poor third-party security ratings signal elevated scam-adjacent risk in its ecosystem. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 70/100 | Multiple sources document concrete real-world usage—eSIM subscribers, active addresses, and transaction volume—supporting a genuine connectivity use case beyond hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 85/100 | The protocol's own design is telecommunications/connectivity infrastructure, a sector with no inherent Shariah prohibition. |
Summary: The project shows real DePIN usage metrics but its team identity is inconsistently reported across sources and cannot be reliably verified.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 85/100 | The core business (decentralized wireless/eSIM connectivity) is described clearly and sits in a permissible sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 50/100 | A deflationary burn mechanism is mentioned but the exact burned/retained/distributed split for fees is not detailed, and some fees appear tied to the interest-like deposit yield model. |
| Treasury Assets | 40/100 (low evidence) | Treasury asset composition (e.g., whether interest-bearing instruments are held) is not disclosed in any source. |
| Revenue Model | 50/100 | Revenue is described as coming from eSIM/data sales and transaction fees rather than explicit interest income, but the protocol's own deposit-yield feature blurs this picture. |
| Transparency | 40/100 | Documentation exists, but code-security ratings are poor and contract transparency tools show limited disclosure, with no confirmed open-source repository for this specific project. |
| Governance | 35/100 | Token-holder governance is asserted but mechanics are vague, while allocation data shows heavy concentration among team, investors, and foundation. |
| Launch Fairness | 30/100 | Sources explicitly flag a low initial circulating supply (~16%) against large team/ecosystem/investor allocations as a high dilution and insider-advantage risk. |
| Token Distribution | 30/100 | Documented allocation tables show public sale and airdrop portions are small (2–12%) relative to team, ecosystem, and strategic-partner allocations (up to 60% combined in one source). |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 45/100 | Sources document both genuine utility usage (eSIM adoption) and pronounced speculative price activity ("peaked at 20x"), indicating a mixed speculation/utility balance. |
Summary: XPIN operates a genuine eSIM/DePIN connectivity business with a deflationary fee mechanism, but token distribution is heavily weighted toward insiders with a low initial circulating float.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 50/100 | Stated revenue streams (eSIM sales, PayFi fees) are not inherently interest-based, but the protocol's own deposit-yield mechanism complicates a clean assessment. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | Market cap, volume, and FDV figures are reported directly, but described volatility (large price swings) indicates limited stability. |
| Interest Assessment | 25/100 | The base protocol's own documentation explicitly describes a deposit feature generating "compound interest yield," a native interest-bearing mechanism. |
| Audit Quality | 35/100 | Only one named audit (Beosin, 01/08/2025) was found, alongside a CertiK code-security score rated "Poor," indicating limited and unfavorable audit coverage. |
Summary: The project has moderate market presence and one named audit with a poor code-security score, while its native deposit feature explicitly offers "compound interest yield" at the protocol level.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 55/100 | The token has multiple documented utility functions (payments, staking, governance, discounts) alongside notable speculative trading behavior. |
| Governance Rights | 45/100 | Governance participation via token holding is mentioned but voting mechanics and actual decentralization are not detailed. |
| Rewards Distribution | 35/100 | Reward sourcing combines emissions and usage fees but is explicitly tied to a "compound interest" deposit structure and front-loaded "attractive yields," resembling fixed/interest-like returns. |
| Speculation Controls | 40/100 | Vesting cliffs and linear schedules exist for insiders, but sources also flag a large gap between circulating and fully diluted supply as a speculation-enabling risk. |
| Asset Backing | 45/100 | The token is not backed by external hard assets; claimed backing rests on network utility and usage, which is only partially substantiated. |
Summary: The token combines documented utility functions with notable speculative trading and an interest-like reward structure in its deposit model.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 40/100 | The deposit/staking model offers flexible and long-term options, but whether deposits are custodial (via "Incentive Hub controllers") or non-custodial is unclear from the sources. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 15/100 | The documentation's own language of "compound interest yield" points to an interest-based (qard-with-increment) structure rather than a clean Islamic profit-sharing contract. |
| Rewards Structure | 25/100 | Rewards are described as including compounding interest-style accrual and front-loaded "attractive yields," rather than being purely variable returns tied to real network performance. |
| Documentation | 40/100 | Staking/deposit pages exist in official documentation, but detailed risk disclosures (e.g., slashing, custodial risk) are not evident in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 20/100 | The explicit "compound interest" framing of the native deposit mechanism raises an unresolved core Shariah question regarding riba that is not addressed or clarified in the sources. |
Summary: A native deposit/staking mechanism exists, but its custodial arrangement is unclear and its rewards are explicitly framed in interest-like terms.
Overall Assessment: XPIN Network presents a genuine connectivity-focused DePIN use case, but unresolved concerns around its interest-framed native deposit yield, insider-heavy token distribution, and unverifiable team identity are significant unresolved Shariah and legitimacy questions.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar