Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does ZEROBASE involve interest?
ZEROBASE's protocol-fee business (proof generation, routing, buyback-and-burn) is not inherently interest-based. However, the separate "ZEROBASE Staking" product, which mirrors user stablecoins to CEXs for arbitrage and funding-rate strategies and pays fixed-feeling returns, closely resembles a riba-bearing deposit product rather than a genuine equity-style participation. Muslim investors should treat this staking feature, not ZBT's base utility, as the primary riba red flag.
Assessment: Riba Dominant
Score: 42.5/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well ZEROBASE avoids interest-based mechanisms.
Protocol revenue is described as routing fees, proof-generation fees, plus "treasury strategy revenues," split 20% to Foundation operations and 80% to a DAO treasury that can fund buyback-and-burn. The fee-for-service portion is a permissible commercial model. But "treasury strategy revenues" and the described CEX-mirrored arbitrage income are not detailed enough to confirm they are free of interest-bearing instruments, margin funding, or derivatives positions on the mirrored exchanges (Binance, Bybit, Hyperliquid), leaving real ambiguity about the underlying income source funding token buybacks.
The core ZK/TEE service marketplace involves no lending or borrowing. However, "ZEROBASE Staking" explicitly mints LP tokens from stablecoin deposits that can be used as collateral to borrow USDT/USDC, while underlying funds are mirrored to centralized exchanges for funding-rate and arbitrage strategies. This creates a lending/borrowing loop layered on custodial fund movement, with returns described as "stable and considerable" rather than tied to disclosed, variable profit-and-loss outcomes—a structure that functions much like an interest-bearing deposit-and-loan arrangement.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does ZEROBASE involve?
ZEROBASE carries moderate uncertainty: the ZK/TEE infrastructure is reasonably well-documented and audited, but the staking/yield product's mechanics and counterparty exposure are opaque. A December 2025 phishing incident (not a contract exploit) cost users over $240,000, adding to real-world risk. On balance, gharar is present but concentrated in specific, identifiable areas rather than pervasive across the whole project.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 52.2/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
The team is named and credentialed, not anonymous: CEO Mirror Tang holds an academic cryptography background tied to Shanghai Jiao Tong University with MIT/UBA connections and co-founded Salus Security; COO Koppany Smith and VP Jacky Cao are also publicly identified. Documentation and a GitHub economics repository provide partial transparency into tokenomics. However, credible community allegations claim the founder cashed out ZBT across multiple exchanges post-listing, possibly through borrowed-name accounts—an unresolved trust concern that adds uncertainty despite the team's public profile.
Two named audits exist: OpenZeppelin (August 6, 2025, cross-chain contracts, zero critical/high findings) and Salusec (September 17, 2025, zero high, one medium, one low finding, including a flagged token-distribution centralization risk). This is a meaningfully audited protocol, unlike many unaudited peers. However, the "ZEROBASE Staking" product's counterparty terms with mirrored CEXs, risk-sharing mechanics, and custody safeguards are not fully disclosed in available documentation, leaving a material gharar gap specifically around that yield product rather than the core ZK infrastructure.
Maysir — Does ZEROBASE involve gambling or speculation?
ZEROBASE's core function—selling verifiable off-chain computation for DeFi, identity, and AI-inference verification—is a productive service, not a wagering mechanism. Speculation exists in ZBT's secondary-market trading, as with any listed token, but this is incidental to, not designed into, the protocol. The overall design leans toward utility rather than gambling.
Assessment: Maysir / Qimar (Gambling)
Score: 49.4/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether ZEROBASE is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
ZEROBASE sells a real service: cryptographic proof generation and routing for applications needing verifiable off-chain computation, zkLogin identity verification, and AI-inference verification. HUB and Proving nodes earn ZBT for actual bandwidth, routing, and TEE-based proof work performed—compensation tied to delivered computation rather than chance. This activity-based reward structure, backed by named audits and a live node network, distinguishes ZBT's core utility from a zero-sum betting mechanism, even though, like any token, it can be traded speculatively by third parties.
Daily trading volumes exceeding $30M alongside notable price volatility indicate active speculative trading in secondary markets, which is common to nearly all listed tokens and not unique to ZEROBASE's design. This trading behavior does not reflect the protocol's intended purpose and should not by itself drive the Shariah assessment. The more relevant maysir-adjacent concern is the "risk-neutral arbitrage" staking product, whose low-variance, guarantee-like payout structure sits closer to a fixed-return promise than to genuine profit-and-loss-sharing investment.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 75/100 | The CEO and other executives are named with verifiable academic and professional credentials traceable via LinkedIn and Forbes profiles. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 35/100 | Community-sourced allegations claim the founder cashed out tokens through multiple exchanges post-listing possibly via borrowed accounts, and a phishing attack separately cost users significant funds. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 78/100 | The protocol provides a clearly documented real-world use case in verifiable zero-knowledge computation, identity, and privacy-preserving finance tooling. |
| Ethical Practices | 55/100 | The core ZK-infrastructure sector is not inherently prohibited, though the protocol's own yield-generating staking product introduces financial-services elements that warrant separate scrutiny under other criteria. |
Summary: ZEROBASE has a named, credentialed founding team building genuine ZK infrastructure, though founder cash-out allegations and a phishing incident are documented concerns.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 80/100 | The base protocol is a zero-knowledge proving/computation network, a sector with no inherent Shariah prohibition. |
| Transaction Fees | 65/100 | Fees fund a buyback-and-burn model split between foundation operations and DAO treasury rather than being extracted as pure interest-like rent. |
| Treasury Assets | 30/100 | Sources mention "treasury strategy revenues" implying the treasury or its income streams involve arbitrage/strategy deployment, but full treasury asset composition is not detailed. |
| Revenue Model | 35/100 | Stated revenue includes fee income alongside "treasury strategy revenues" tied to arbitrage/funding-rate activity, which carries interest-like characteristics. |
| Transparency | 68/100 | Multiple whitepapers, a MiCA disclosure document, public docs, and a GitHub economics repository provide reasonable transparency. |
| Governance | 48/100 | DAO governance exists for treasury and parameter votes, but an independent audit explicitly flagged centralization risk in the initial token distribution. |
| Launch Fairness | 30/100 | The launch involved pre-sale allocations to team (20%) and early investors (11.25%) rather than a fully fair, permissionless launch. |
| Token Distribution | 40/100 | Distribution is concentrated with roughly 31% allocated to team and investors despite vesting, alongside broader node-staking and community allocations. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 50/100 | Sources note both genuine protocol utility and a surge in speculative trading activity and volatility around the token. |
Summary: The protocol operates a real zero-knowledge computation network with disclosed fee/buyback economics, DAO governance, and a fixed but insider-concentrated token allocation with vesting.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 35/100 | Disclosed revenue sources include arbitrage/funding-rate "treasury strategy" income in addition to service fees, introducing interest-like elements. |
| Financial Status | 45/100 | Some market metrics (volume, funding raised) are available, but comprehensive financial stability data is not established in these sources. |
| Interest Assessment | 20/100 | The base protocol itself runs a stablecoin staking/vault product generating "stable" returns via CEX-mirrored arbitrage and allows LP tokens as loan collateral, constituting native lending/interest-like activity. |
| Audit Quality | 75/100 | Named firms OpenZeppelin (Aug 2025) and Salusec (Sept 2025) conducted audits with publicly summarized findings showing no critical/high issues. |
Summary: Named audits (OpenZeppelin, Salusec) exist with no critical findings, but protocol revenue and its flagship staking product both derive partly from arbitrage/interest-like strategies.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 70/100 | Official documentation consistently frames ZBT as a utility token for service access, node incentives, and governance rather than a purely speculative meme token. |
| Governance Rights | 65/100 | Holders can vote on network parameters and treasury allocation through a DAO structure per official sources. |
| Rewards Distribution | 35/100 | Node rewards are activity-based and variable, but the flagship staking product advertises "stable and considerable returns," resembling fixed/interest-like payouts. |
| Speculation Controls | 40/100 | Vesting cliffs and linear release schedules exist for insider allocations, but no strong anti-speculation mechanism addresses secondary-market volatility. |
| Asset Backing | 40/100 | Value is tied to protocol fee capture and buyback/burn funded partly by arbitrage-strategy income rather than a clearly halal asset or reserve base. |
Summary: ZBT functions as a documented utility and governance token with activity-based node rewards, though its staking product's "stable" returns diverge from clean risk-sharing.
5. Staking Mechanism
ZEROBASE has no native staking mechanism, so these five criteria are not applicable and are excluded from the score entirely rather than counted as zeros.
Overall Assessment: ZEROBASE is a legitimate ZK-infrastructure project with credentialed leadership and audited contracts, but its native stablecoin staking/yield product's interest-like, custodially-mirrored arbitrage returns are the central unresolved Shariah concern.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar