Islamic Finance Principles Assessment
Riba — Does zkPass involve interest?
zkPass's core protocol does not involve interest-based lending, borrowing, or fixed-return debt instruments; its revenue derives from proof-settlement fees and validator participation. No sources indicate treasury funds are parked in interest-bearing instruments. On riba grounds specifically, zkPass appears largely permissible, though disclosure gaps leave some details unconfirmed.
Assessment: Moderate Riba
Score: 61.5/100
Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well zkPass avoids interest-based mechanisms.
zkPass generates income conceptually through proof-settlement fees and validator/verifier participation rather than interest-bearing lending activity. The protocol itself is explicitly not a lending or credit platform; any DeFi credit-scoring or lending applications built on top of its verification layer are third-party products, separate from zkPass's own function. Treasury allocation (10% DAO Treasury, Swiss non-profit foundation-managed) is not described as being deployed into interest-bearing instruments in available sources. A promotional claim of fee-burn and DAO buybacks remains unverified elsewhere, but even if accurate, burns and buybacks are not inherently riba-based mechanisms.
Validators post $ZKP as operational collateral to guarantee network correctness, uptime, and reliability, with rewards apparently tied to network activity rather than a fixed guaranteed rate. This activity-linked structure resembles a variable, performance-based compensation model rather than a predetermined interest payment, which is the more permissible structure under Islamic finance principles. However, sources give no detail on the exact reward formula, lock-up duration, or slashing conditions, so it cannot be confirmed with certainty whether any fixed-rate element exists within this collateral-staking arrangement. This documentation gap is a gharar issue more than a confirmed riba one.
Gharar — How much uncertainty does zkPass involve?
zkPass carries meaningful uncertainty stemming from partial team anonymity, an unresolved fund-commingling allegation, and thin technical disclosure around staking mechanics. This is offset by real audited infrastructure, institutional backers, and a functioning use case. On balance, the uncertainty here is elevated relative to a fully transparent protocol, warranting caution.
Assessment: Moderate Gharar (Material Uncertainty)
Score: 52/100
Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.
Co-founders Joshua Peng and Bing Jiang, plus Head of Growth Francis Berwa, are named and traceable, lending some legitimacy. However, most core team members beyond these figures remain anonymous or pseudonymous, a pattern attributed to privacy-industry norms rather than explained transparency policy. More seriously, blockchain investigator ZachXBT has alleged that a purported co-founder, Gurhan Kiziloz, commingled at least $25M in ZKP/BlockDAG presale funds to promote an unrelated casino venture without investor disclosure. This allegation remains disputed and unconfirmed, but it is a live, unresolved governance-integrity concern that meaningfully raises uncertainty for prospective investors.
Halborn audited the ZKP token contract in November 2025 and pentested the Chromium browser extension in 2024, with identified issues mostly remediated; Cyberscope also lists an audit. This is a genuine positive relative to unaudited projects. However, no comprehensive, dated third-party financial audit of treasury or reserves was found, and staking documentation lacks granular disclosure of custody, lock-up duration, slashing conditions, and precise reward formulas. This absence of detailed technical and legal disclosure around the collateral-staking arrangement is a concrete gharar concern that should be named plainly rather than assumed resolved.
Maysir — Does zkPass involve gambling or speculation?
zkPass is not designed as a gambling or speculative-betting mechanism; it is infrastructure for private data verification with genuine enterprise and DeFi-adjacent use cases. What raises maysir-adjacent concern is not the protocol's design but the volatile secondary-market trading of its token relative to its small fundamentals. Overall, the protocol's own function does not resemble maysir.
Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk)
Score: 57.7/100
Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether zkPass is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.
zkPass's zkTLS technology enables users to cryptographically prove real facts, bank balances, KYC status, credentials, or social records, to third-party applications without exposing underlying private data. This is a productive, service-oriented function serving verifiable identity, compliance, and trust use cases across Web3 and enterprise settings. Such utility-driven design, generating value through actual verification services rather than zero-sum wagering, distinguishes zkPass fundamentally from gambling-style instruments. The presence of named leadership, audited contracts, and institutional backing (Binance Labs, Sequoia China, Animoca Brands, OKX Ventures) further supports its characterization as functional infrastructure rather than a speculative gambling vehicle.
Against this genuine utility, market data shows a circulating cap of roughly $16-17M against an FDV near $83M, with daily trading volume reported as high as $70-72M, a ratio indicating trading activity far exceeding what current fundamentals or usage would suggest. This pattern signals that much of the token's market activity is short-term speculative trading rather than usage-driven demand. Such secondary-market speculation is a feature of many early-stage tokens and is not unique to zkPass's design, but it is a factor Muslim investors should weigh separately from the protocol's own legitimate function when considering personal exposure.
The Full 27-Point Screening
1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Team Transparency | 45/100 | Some founders (Joshua Peng, Bing Jiang) are named and traceable, but multiple sources note most core team remains anonymous/pseudonymous and an alleged co-founder is tied to unresolved fund-misuse allegations. |
| Fraud & Scam Risk | 35/100 | A blockchain investigator's allegation that presale funds were diverted to a founder's unrelated casino venture is a direct, reported red flag, even though unproven/contested. |
| Use Case Legitimacy | 75/100 | zkTLS-based data verification has documented real-world integrations (80+ ecosystems, 10M+ proofs) spanning identity, DeFi, and compliance use cases. |
| Ethical Practices | 80/100 | The protocol's own design is a privacy-preserving data-verification oracle with no inherent haram purpose; any misuse by third-party dApps (e.g., gambling apps consuming its proofs) is not attributable to the protocol's own design. |
Summary: The team is partially named and credentialed but has notable transparency gaps and an unresolved fund-misuse allegation involving an alleged co-founder.
2. Project Operations (9 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Core Protocol Business | 80/100 | The base protocol is verification/oracle infrastructure, not a prohibited sector like gambling or conventional lending. |
| Transaction Fees | 60/100 | A single promotional source claims partial fee burning and DAO buybacks, but this is not corroborated in official documentation. |
| Treasury Assets | 50/100 (low evidence) | Treasury composition (DAO Treasury, foundation reserves) is mentioned but no breakdown of whether holdings include interest-bearing instruments is given. |
| Revenue Model | 65/100 | Revenue is described as coming from proof settlement/validator fees rather than interest, but mechanics and figures are not disclosed in detail. |
| Transparency | 55/100 | Extensive public docs and whitepapers exist, but explicit open-source licensing/codebase transparency is not confirmed in these sources. |
| Governance | 45/100 | Governance is nominally DAO-based via a Swiss foundation, but token allocation (36.5% to investors/team with long vesting) indicates early centralization. |
| Launch Fairness | 55/100 | No team/investor tokens unlocked at TGE and a no-vesting genesis airdrop show some fairness, but a sizeable VC/insider allocation (36.5%) is typical of a non-fully-fair launch. |
| Token Distribution | 55/100 | Community holds the largest share (48.5%) but investors and core contributors together control over a third of supply with multi-year vesting. |
| Speculation/Utility Ratio | 50/100 | Reported daily trading volume ($70-72M) dwarfing market cap (~$16-17M) signals significant speculative activity alongside genuine utility features. |
Summary: zkPass is a genuine zkTLS-based data-verification oracle protocol with real integrations, moderate governance centralization, and a VC/insider-heavy but vesting-controlled token launch.
3. Financial Health (4 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Protocol Revenue | 70/100 | Revenue model is framed around settlement fees, not interest, but detailed protocol financial disclosures are absent. |
| Financial Status | 40/100 | Small market cap, high volatility, and an unresolved fund-misuse allegation point to financial and reputational instability at this early stage. |
| Interest Assessment | 80/100 | The base protocol offers no lending/borrowing or interest mechanism itself; credit-scoring/lending use cases are explicitly third-party applications. |
| Audit Quality | 65/100 | Halborn conducted a token-contract audit (Nov 2025) and a browser-extension pentest (2024), and Cyberscope is also listed as an auditor, though full findings/remediation details are only partially disclosed. |
Summary: The protocol earns fee-based, non-interest revenue and has undergone partial smart-contract audits, but it remains a small, volatile, early-stage asset with no protocol-level lending/borrowing.
4. Token Economics (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Token Purpose | 75/100 | $ZKP is documented as a functional utility token for settlement, collateral, and governance rather than a purely speculative meme asset. |
| Governance Rights | 55/100 | Governance participation via the token is referenced but voting rights/mechanics are not detailed. |
| Rewards Distribution | 55/100 | Rewards are tied conceptually to network/validator activity rather than a fixed rate, but the exact reward formula is undisclosed. |
| Speculation Controls | 50/100 | Vesting cliffs for investors and contributors reduce immediate dump risk, but no dedicated anti-speculation mechanism (e.g., trading limits) is documented. |
| Asset Backing | 55/100 | The token's value rests on network utility/demand rather than a defined halal asset backing, per available documentation. |
Summary: $ZKP functions as a genuine utility and governance token with vesting-based anti-dump controls, though detailed reward and backing mechanics remain underspecified.
5. Staking Mechanism (5 criteria)
| Criterion | Score | Analysis |
|---|
| Mechanism Type | 50/100 | Validators post $ZKP as protocol-level collateral, but custody, flexibility, and withdrawal terms are not detailed in the sources. |
| Islamic Contract Classification | 45/100 | Validator collateral staking's Islamic-contract nature (service compensation vs. fixed-return) is not resolved by the available documentation. |
| Rewards Structure | 55/100 | Rewards appear linked to network/proof activity rather than a guaranteed fixed rate, but this is not explicitly confirmed with a documented formula. |
| Documentation | 35/100 | Only conceptual mentions of validator staking exist; lock-up periods, slashing rules, and risk disclosures are not found in these sources. |
| Shariah Alignment | 40/100 | The lack of documented terms for the staking/collateral mechanism leaves a degree of unresolved gharar regarding its structure and risk allocation. |
Summary: A native validator-collateral staking mechanism exists but is documented only at a conceptual level, leaving key terms, custody, and Islamic-contract classification unresolved.
Overall Assessment: zkPass presents a legitimate technical infrastructure project with real utility and partial audits, but unresolved fraud allegations, thin governance/staking documentation, and early-stage market volatility warrant caution pending further disclosure.
Written by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global Energy
Reviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar