Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does Zebec Network involve interest?
Zebec Network's own revenue model is fee-, card-, and partner-integration-driven rather than interest-based, and no source describes the treasury as holding interest-bearing instruments. One low-quality source mischaracterizes Zebec as a "lending and borrowing protocol with algorithmic interest rates," but this contradicts the whitepaper and the weight of other material. On balance, Zebec's design does not appear structured around riba, though the conflicting source warrants caution pending clearer disclosure.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 53/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Zebec Network avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Zebec's stated revenue comes from transaction fees (roughly 1 ZBCN per transaction), card-program fees, and partner integration payments, portions of which are burned or routed to validators, an ecosystem vault, and a dev fund. This is consistent with a payments-infrastructure business model rather than an interest-bearing lending operation. Treasury composition includes an 18% allocation, but its actual holdings (cash, tokens, or interest-bearing instruments) are not detailed in available documentation. Absent evidence of treasury funds being placed in interest-bearing accounts or debt instruments, the revenue model itself does not present a clear riba concern, though the treasury's undisclosed composition limits full certainty.
Reward mechanics combine a scheduled ~2.5% annual token inflation (through 2028) feeding staking/community incentives with a deflationary buyback-and-burn funded by card and integration revenue — variable, performance-linked flows rather than a fixed guaranteed interest rate. Separately, "vote staking" rewards correct governance predictors from incorrect predictors' stakes, a redistributive rather than interest-based mechanism, with stakes returned if quorum fails. Because reward sourcing ties to network activity, inflation schedules, and prediction outcomes rather than a fixed contractual return on capital, the structure resembles profit/participation-sharing more than riba, though custody, lock-up, and slashing terms remain unclear.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does Zebec Network involve?
Zebec carries moderate-to-elevated uncertainty stemming primarily from unresolved verification gaps and unconfirmed allegations rather than from a fundamentally opaque protocol design. Public documentation, a named team, and completed audits reduce gharar, while CertiK's "Not Verified" team status, an unresolved centralization finding, and inconsistent staking descriptions increase it. Overall, this is a project with real disclosure but real gaps, warranting caution rather than blanket avoidance.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 50.3/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Zebec's core team is named and publicly identifiable — Sam Thapaliya, Simon Babakhani, Elena Solovyov, Neal Padhye, Parth Shah, and Stelios Gerogiannakis — with LinkedIn profiles and a Circle-hosted interview, which is a meaningful transparency positive compared to anonymous projects. However, CertiK explicitly marks the team as "Not Verified" through its own process, and investigative sources raise unconfirmed allegations of BVI ghost companies, insider token dumping, and misleading burn reporting. Whitepaper, docs, and some GitHub assets are public, but the verification gap and unresolved allegations leave a residual disclosure shortfall.
CertiK has audited Zebec's Solana programs and a Wormhole bridge program, with the last audit delivered March 2024; one major centralization finding was acknowledged but remains unresolved, while other issues were resolved. No Shariah-specific audit exists for Zebec, and none should be assumed. Staking terms are particularly underspecified: custody model, lock-up length, and slashing conditions are not clearly documented, and one generic description of "staking" appears borrowed from Ethereum proof-of-stake language rather than Zebec's actual mechanics. This documentation inconsistency around a live financial feature is a genuine gharar concern investors should weigh.
Maysir — Does Zebec Network involve gambling or speculation?
Zebec Network is not designed as a gambling mechanism; its core function is real-time payroll and treasury settlement, a productive use case. Some speculative behavior exists around the token in secondary markets, as with most listed tokens, but this is a market-conduct issue rather than a protocol-design one. On balance, the project's own design does not center on chance-based wagering.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 54/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Zebec Network is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
Zebec's product is continuous-settlement infrastructure for payroll, treasury management, and crypto cards, with documented enterprise integrations including Hivemapper, Sphere Labs, and World Mobile. This indicates functioning real-world utility rather than a purely speculative or identity-driven token. Transaction fees fund network operations and buyback-and-burn, tying token value to genuine service usage rather than to a chance-based payout structure. The "vote staking" governance layer redistributes stakes based on prediction accuracy on real proposals, which is a governance mechanism rather than a gambling product, though its incentive design merits ongoing scrutiny.
Weighed against this utility, market-cap and liquidity figures vary widely across sources (roughly $250M to $3.4B), and one investigative source alleges thin liquidity relative to claimed market capitalization, conditions that can invite excessive speculative trading disconnected from underlying usage. Large insider allocations under multi-year vesting, concluding around March 2026, combined with unconfirmed reports of insider dumping, further suggest secondary-market price action may at times reflect speculative positioning more than fee-driven demand. Genuine utility exists, but investors should distinguish holding ZBCN for network use from trading it amid these volatility and liquidity concerns.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 55/100 | Team members are named with public profiles and a founder interview exists, but CertiK states the team is not verified and unconfirmed allegations question transparency. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 35/100 | Multiple sources report specific, though unconfirmed, allegations of money laundering, rug-pull-linked associates, insider dumping and misleading burn claims against the project and founder. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 75/100 | Sources document real enterprise payroll/payments usage with named clients and measurable transaction volume, indicating genuine utility beyond hype. |
| Ethical Practices | 82/100 | The base protocol is designed for payments, payroll and streaming infrastructure, not a prohibited industry, per its own documentation. |
Summary: The team is publicly named with credible backers, but unverified team-check status plus multiple unconfirmed but specific fraud-related allegations leave legitimacy mixed.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 82/100 | Sources consistently describe the core protocol as payment/payroll settlement infrastructure, a permissible business sector. |
| Transaction Fees | 70/100 | Fee model burns a portion of each transaction fee and routes the remainder to validators and ecosystem funds, resembling a fair gas-fee structure rather than interest extraction. |
| Treasury Assets | 45/100 (low evidence) | Sources state a treasury allocation percentage but give no detail on what assets the treasury actually holds. |
| Revenue Model | 60/100 | Most sources describe fee- and revenue-based buyback funding, but one conflicting source claims the protocol earns algorithmic lending interest, leaving the revenue model unclear. |
| Transparency | 65/100 | Whitepaper, docs site and some GitHub materials are public, though CertiK's unverified-team flag and inconsistent tokenomics figures across sources temper full transparency. |
| Governance | 48/100 | Governance is token-weighted DAO voting with a defined quorum, but CertiK documents an acknowledged centralization issue and large insider/team holdings concentrate influence. |
| Launch Fairness | 30/100 | Sources describe substantial Private Round, Seed Round, Contributors and Team allocations with vesting cliffs, plus reported community complaints of VC dumping, indicating an unfair launch structure. |
| Token Distribution | 45/100 | While half of supply targets community/rewards, combined private, seed, contributor and team allocations represent a large insider-concentrated share. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 55/100 | Real payroll/card usage is documented, but heavy trading volatility and insider-driven price swings suggest speculation remains significant relative to utility. |
Summary: Zebec operates a real payments/payroll streaming protocol with burn-based fee handling, though its launch and token distribution favored insiders with vesting rather than a broad fair launch.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 55/100 | Revenue is largely described as fee- and buyback-based, but one source's claim of algorithmic lending interest introduces unresolved doubt. |
| Financial Status | 35/100 | Market capitalization and liquidity figures vary drastically across sources, and one investigative source alleges disproportionately thin liquidity, undermining confidence in financial stability data. |
| Interest Assessment | 48/100 | Most sources depict a pure payments protocol with no native lending, but one source explicitly describes algorithmic interest-bearing lending/borrowing, and this contradiction is unresolved in the material available. |
| Audit Quality | 62/100 | CertiK documents three named audits with specific findings, most resolved, though one major centralization finding remains only acknowledged rather than fixed. |
Summary: Revenue appears fee- and buyback-driven with named but limited audit coverage, though inconsistent market data and one conflicting source about interest-based lending leave financial clarity incomplete.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 72/100 | Sources describe ZBCN as serving fee-payment, governance and product-access utility functions rather than existing purely as a speculative meme token. |
| Governance Rights | 65/100 | Holders can vote on proposals with influence proportional to holdings and a defined quorum threshold, per the project's own tokenomics documentation. |
| Rewards Distribution | 45/100 | Reward sources combine a scheduled fixed annual inflation rate with variable, activity-based buyback/burn and prediction-style vote-staking rewards, creating a mixed and only partly performance-linked structure. |
| Speculation Controls | 55/100 | Multi-year linear vesting schedules for insider allocations and a scheduled supply-cap completion date are explicitly documented as controls on early speculative dumping. |
| Asset Backing | 50/100 | The token's value rests on fee-based demand and revenue-funded buybacks rather than any explicit asset reserve, which sources describe only partially. |
Summary: ZBCN carries genuine fee, governance and access utility with vesting-based anti-speculation controls, but it is not backed by any hard asset and depends on ongoing revenue-funded buybacks.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 45/100 | Sources mention a vote-staking prediction mechanism and general "staking for yield" claims, but custody model and mechanics are not consistently or clearly documented. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 35/100 | The reward mix of fixed scheduled inflation and prediction-style staking does not map cleanly onto a single recognized Islamic contract, and sources do not attempt this classification. |
| Rewards Structure | 40/100 | Rewards appear to combine a fixed inflation schedule with variable, activity-linked burn/buyback and prediction-market payouts, so they are not purely variable or clearly performance-based. |
| Documentation | 32/100 | General project documentation exists, but staking-specific lock-up periods, slashing conditions and risk disclosures are not detailed in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | The unresolved mix of fixed-rate inflation rewards and unclear staking mechanics leaves a real, undocumented Shariah classification question rather than a settled low-gharar structure. |
Summary: A staking-like mechanism exists in some form, but its custody, lock-up, and reward structure are inconsistently documented across sources, leaving core mechanics unclear.
Overall Assessment: Zebec presents a genuine payments-infrastructure use case with real enterprise adoption, but unresolved fraud allegations, unverified team status, insider-heavy token distribution, and murky staking/interest details mean several Shariah-relevant questions remain unanswered rather than clearly resolved.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar