Cudos (CUDOS) is currently marked questionable - not a clean pass or a confirmed fail, per our own multi-standard crypto screen. Our full reasoning, the standards behind it and the facts it rests on are below.
The disagreement is about whether a share of protocol fees is payment for a service or a return on capital.
5 of 6 permit it; 1 do not. We report that as unsettled rather than picking a side for you.
Not fully corroborated, and it matters. 2 separate models read this coin and gave different answers for asset kind, return mechanism, and the difference changes the outcome: on one reading this coin comes out compliant and on another questionable. We publish the reading we hold and tell you it is contested, rather than presenting a verdict as firmer than its basis.
Not established: transparent governance. Our verdict does not assume anything about these — where they would change the answer, we say so rather than guessing.
Default permissibility and no riba. Note the Council ruled on Bitcoin specifically - applying it to a non-currency token like this one is an extension by analogy, not something the Council itself ruled.
Fiqh Council of North America, “Regarding the Islamic Ruling on Bitcoins” — default permissibility; treated as fiat currency, so all riba rulings and bai’ al-sarf apply
No clear evidence of prohibition: no riba, no impermissible underlying activity, and a real function.
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America — Dr. Salah Al-Sawy (Secretary General) and Dr. Yasir Qadhi: transactions are permissible unless clear evidence prohibits them
This standard requires transparent governance to be established, and we could not establish it. An unestablished requirement is not a satisfied one, so this reads as unresolved rather than as a pass.
Securities Commission Malaysia, Shariah Advisory Council, 233rd-234th meetings, June-July 2020
Project, token and reward layers all pass.
Amanah Advisors, Crypto Shariah Screening Framework (Mufti Faraz Adam)
Validation and fee-sharing are compensation for a real service rendered to the network, not a return on capital — the position under which this firm certified Ethereum staking.
Amanie Advisors (Dr. Daud Bakar) — Shariah certification of Ethereum staking; validation treated as a real service rendered to the network rather than a return on capital
No interest-derived return to the holder.
AAOIFI Shariah Standards - riba and non-permissible income, applied to the token's return mechanism (no dedicated crypto standard exists)
No intrinsic backing and no issuing authority; excessive gharar under this position, which applies to most digital assets including Bitcoin.
Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (crypto trading and investment impermissible); Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (Egypt, 2018); Diyanet Isleri Baskanligi (Turkey, 2017)
The restrictive position above is shown but excluded from our own verdict: it rejects most digital assets including Bitcoin on gharar alone, so letting it decide would mark nearly everything non-compliant — which is neither our conclusion nor a defensible reading of the evidence. Hiding it would be worse.
This is our own screening verdict, reached by applying each named standard ourselves to the facts above, last established 2026-08-29. Research, not a fatwa — for a decision that binds you, ask a scholar you trust.
⚪ NOT ENOUGH DATA
Only 0 of 6 momentum inputs are available for CUDOS, which is not enough to read a setup. This is a gap in our price history for this coin, not a judgement about it.
Scores: 0 bullish / 0 bearish
Scored without rsi, roc, rel_vol, macd, above_ma, smc_grade — data unavailable this render.
Plain-language summary of the evidence already on this page — the Sharia screen, structure, momentum, and order flow above. It explains the read; it doesn't make the call. Generated on demand (a live AI call), never run automatically.