Riba-free pricing as substrate, not feature.
What is settled today by construction, what is built to your ruling, and what we ask you to decide. We are precise about the boundary because the mathematics resolves one of the three concerns — not all of them.
Download the 2-page brief (PDF) →What this is
A working chain — the mechanism runs today, in consensus — whose single monetary primitive is κ (convergence intensity), a market-measured rate of real events that replaces the interest rate r. Interest is absent by construction: issuance is zero (validators are paid only from real fees — no money bred from the passage of time), funding settles as the signed κ-basis (zero at parity, outcome-contingent, never predetermined), and every native instrument prices off κ with no discount term.
Stated plainly, what is NOT yet built: an active inclusion-time guard that rejects an arbitrary user contract whose semantics imply interest is not autonomous (that is undecidable). It is enforced by permissioning — only board-approved contracts execute — which is coded and board-activated. And "live" means a single-node demonstrator with protocol-seeded liquidity: the mechanism is real; it is not yet a capitalised, multi-validator market. One further honesty: the riba-freeness is structural (ι=0, by construction), but the κ magnitudes measured today are still calibrated from conventional, interest-priced markets — fully native, decontaminated κ pricing is prospective, realised only as instruments come to be quoted in κ directly.
The classical grounding
The design operationalises the canonical monetary ontology: al-Ghazālī's money-as-mirror (a measure with no value of its own) → ι=0 at the trade layer; Ibn Taymiyyah's miʿyār (the integrity of the measure) → a manipulation-resistant, multi-party median κ; Ibn Khaldūn on return tracking real activity → validators paid from real fees, zero inflationary issuance. A board of a particular madhhab may weight these differently — this is the framing, not a claim on the ruling.
The boundary — settled today vs built to your ruling
What we ask — and what we don't
We are not asking for a blanket "Shariah-compliant" certification, and riba-free is explicitly not the same as compliant. We ask for a ruling on the asset-backed instrument class (Track B) — perpetual sukuk, tabarru-based takaful, and credit protection structured as kafāla over an owned exposure — where the hard pillars (gharar, qabd) are addressed by the R1–R4 gates we will enforce to the line you draw. The cash-settled perpetual (Track A) remains explicitly open pending your ruling on its permissibility independent of interest — the SBR-5 question. We do not seek to launch it on the riba proof alone.
What you can see, live
Off the one consensus κ, computing each block:
Try them on the interactive pricer — the prices move with κ, and no interest rate appears in either formula. For full examination: the complete corpus is one book (355pp), and every empirical result is reproducible on GitHub (81 analyses).
The ask
A session to examine the running mechanism and rule on the Track-B class — what is permissible as-is, what requires structural change, and what conditions you would attach. Your authority on the residual is final; the architecture is built to enforce whatever line you draw.
Request a review session →This brief leads with fiqh, not blockchain, by design — it should be legible without crypto fluency. Two places tailor to a specific board: the madhhab weighting of the classical grounding, and whether to foreground takaful or sukuk as the lead instrument.