Decentraland

Is Decentraland (MANA) Halal? A CoinStudy HCS Analysis

The metaverse has generated considerable interest among Muslim investors, and Decentraland is among the earliest and most prominent blockchain-based virtual worlds. The question of whether MANA is permissible cannot be answered by examining the token’s technology or land-ownership mechanism in isolation, because Decentraland is an open platform and what operates within it is directly relevant to the analysis. The decisive question is not whether gambling is prohibited in Islam, which is unambiguous, but whether documented gambling venues within a general-purpose virtual world create a sufficient connection between the platform’s primary currency and the prohibited activity to trigger CoinStudy’s Gambling or Betting red line. CoinStudy has conducted a full HCS review and explains its answer to that question, including the specific transactional connections identified and the qualitative criteria applied, in this analysis.

Quick Verdict: MANA Is Haram ❌

MANA fails the Gambling or Betting Layer 1 red line test under CoinStudy’s Halal Crypto Standard and is classified as Haram without proceeding to Layer 2 scoring. The finding is based on documented, specific transactional connections between MANA’s utility and gambling infrastructure within Decentraland, evaluated under CoinStudy’s HCS operational framework for this red line. This is CoinStudy’s operational classification informed by the Maysir prohibition and the Sadd al Dhara’i principle, not a universally agreed conclusion of classical jurisprudence. The Chairman’s review is pending and will be disclosed when complete. Muslim investors should treat this analysis as CoinStudy’s current research position and seek individual scholarly guidance for any investment decision.

What Is Decentraland in 2026?

Decentraland is a virtual reality platform built on Ethereum in which users purchase, develop, and monetise parcels of virtual land. The project was co-founded by Ari Meilich and Esteban Ordano, launched via an ICO in 2017 that raised approximately $24 million, and opened for public access in February 2020. Since the founders stepped back from active roles, development and governance have been led by the Decentraland Foundation and its decentralised autonomous organisation.

Decentraland uses two token types. MANA is an ERC-20 fungible token that serves as the platform’s primary currency, used to purchase LAND parcels, avatars, wearables, and names in the marketplace, and to participate in governance by converting MANA to wrapped MANA for DAO voting. LAND is an ERC-721 non-fungible token representing individual 16m by 16m virtual parcels; 90,601 parcels exist according to CoinMarketCap data as of October 2026, and each LAND token carries 2,000 governance votes. This analysis covers MANA only. LAND as an NFT instrument would require a separate assessment.

According to CoinMarketCap data retrieved in October 2026, MANA’s circulating supply is approximately 1.98 billion tokens against a total supply of approximately 2.19 billion, with no hard maximum supply defined. The original supply was 2.8 billion MANA, reduced by more than 600 million through burns from LAND auction proceeds. A 2.5% burn applies to marketplace transactions. Inflation is currently disabled. MANA ranks at number 146 with a market capitalisation of approximately $173.6 million and a price of approximately $0.087. The token reached an all-time high of $5.90 on November 25, 2021, according to CoinMarketCap historical data, representing a decline of approximately 98.5% from peak as of October 2026. Token holder count stands at approximately 282,340 wallets according to CoinMarketCap data retrieved in October 2026; this figure represents unique wallet addresses and does not represent a count of unique investors, as one investor may hold multiple wallets. All market data figures are time-sensitive and must be verified immediately before publication.

How CoinStudy Assesses Gambling Exposure in General-Purpose Platforms

Because the Gambling or Betting red line applied to a general-purpose platform token raises methodological questions that will recur across metaverse and gaming token analyses, CoinStudy sets out its assessment framework explicitly here.

What qualifies as a material gambling presence under HCS?

CoinStudy does not apply a numerical threshold such as a percentage of transaction volume or user activity. A precise numerical threshold cannot be reliably determined from publicly available information for most platforms, and CoinStudy does not assert one for Decentraland. Instead, CoinStudy applies a qualitative materiality test that asks whether gambling is a documented, identified, and structurally accommodated feature of the platform rather than an incidental or isolated event. Gambling is material under this test when it operates at a venue level with named operators, reported financial activity, and documented infrastructure within the platform, rather than occurring in individual unorganised transactions that the platform neither knows about nor facilitates.

How does CoinStudy distinguish current activity from historical prominence?

CoinStudy bases the Gambling or Betting finding on documented current infrastructure, specifically the presence of named gambling venues and operators within Decentraland as of October 2026, rather than solely on historical peak user figures from 2021 to 2022. The ICE Poker peak activity figures from that period are cited as historical evidence establishing that gambling reached structural scale within the platform, not as a current activity measurement. CoinStudy acknowledges that the scale of gambling activity within Decentraland may have reduced since 2022 and does not assert that it represents the same share of platform activity today. The finding rests on the continued documented presence of gambling infrastructure, not on a determination that gambling remains the dominant use of the platform.

What level of connection between the token and gambling is sufficient?

CoinStudy’s HCS Gambling or Betting red line is not triggered by the mere existence of gambling anywhere within a broad ecosystem. It is triggered when the token’s own documented utility creates specific transactional connections to the gambling infrastructure. For MANA, CoinStudy identifies three specific documented connections: MANA is the currency used to purchase LAND parcels, including parcels on which gambling venues are built and operated; MANA was the currency used to purchase ICE wearable NFTs required to participate in ICE Poker, which Decentraland’s own marketplace facilitated; and the 2.5% marketplace burn on MANA transactions includes transactions connected to gambling-related asset sales. These are specific, documented connections between MANA utility and gambling activity, not a general assertion that MANA circulates in an economy that contains gambling somewhere.

How does CoinStudy handle platforms where permissible and prohibited activities coexist?

CoinStudy acknowledges that Decentraland also hosts art galleries, events, education venues, commercial spaces, and other permissible activities. The coexistence of permissible and prohibited activities does not automatically make the platform’s currency Haram, but it does not automatically make it permissible either. CoinStudy’s operational rule for this situation focuses on whether the prohibited activity creates specific, documented transactional connections to the token’s own utility, rather than requiring that gambling be the token’s exclusive or primary use. Under CoinStudy’s HCS framework, a token whose utility creates specific documented connections to gambling infrastructure satisfies the Gambling or Betting red line even when permissible activities also coexist on the platform. Scholars applying a proportionality framework, which would weigh the ratio of permissible to prohibited activity, may reach a different conclusion. CoinStudy states its rule explicitly and does not present it as universally agreed.

The Core Mechanism: MANA’s Documented Connections to Gambling Infrastructure

The core Gambling or Betting question for MANA is not whether gambling exists somewhere in Decentraland’s open world, but whether MANA’s own utility creates specific documented transactional connections to that gambling infrastructure sufficient to trigger CoinStudy’s HCS operational rule.

Decentraland hosts gambling venues as a documented feature of its virtual world. Decentral Games, operating under the ICE Poker brand, established virtual poker rooms within Decentraland. Reporting by The Real Deal in March 2022 described ICE Poker as drawing approximately half of the platform’s active users at that time, with Decentral Games reporting $15.4 million paid out to players. This figure is cited from that reporting and CoinStudy has not independently verified it; before publication, this claim should be linked to the original Decentral Games source documentation. Academic research on Decentraland’s user activity, cited in publicly available literature including arxiv.org, has documented gambling as a significant component of platform use during the 2021 to 2022 period. These figures describe the historical peak of ICE Poker activity and are presented as establishing that gambling infrastructure reached structural scale within the platform, not as measurements of October 2026 activity levels.

As of October 2026, gambling venues including casino operations remain documented within Decentraland’s virtual world. CoinStudy’s finding of current gambling infrastructure presence is based on the continued operation of casino venues within the platform as reported in available sources. Before publication, CoinStudy should verify and link current evidence confirming that gambling venues remain operational within Decentraland as of October 2026.

CoinStudy identifies three specific documented connections between MANA’s utility and Decentraland’s gambling infrastructure, distinguishing them from general platform activity.

The first is land purchase. MANA is the currency used to purchase LAND parcels in Decentraland, including parcels on which gambling venues including the ICE Poker casino district operate. A land purchase using MANA that results in gambling infrastructure being built on that parcel represents a specific documented connection between a MANA transaction and gambling activity. This connection is established by the documented land ownership structure of the casino district within Decentraland.

The second is wearable transactions. ICE Poker required players to hold a specific wearable NFT to participate. These wearables were sold and traded through Decentraland’s marketplace, where MANA is the primary currency. MANA transactions in the marketplace for gambling-access wearables represent a direct connection between MANA utility and the participation mechanism of a gambling activity. The 2.5% marketplace burn applies to these transactions, meaning MANA burns were generated from gambling-access asset sales.

The third is marketplace fee attribution. The 2.5% burn on Decentraland marketplace transactions, including those connected to gambling-related assets, means that MANA supply reduction has been partially generated from gambling-related marketplace activity. CoinStudy does not assert that all marketplace burns are gambling-related or that the gambling-derived share of burns is known; it notes this as one of the three specific connections rather than the primary basis for the finding.

These three connections are what CoinStudy means when it says MANA’s utility creates specific documented transactional connections to gambling infrastructure. The finding does not rest on the general assertion that MANA circulates in an economy that contains gambling somewhere, or on a claim that gambling is the primary use of MANA today.

Applying Islamic Finance Principles

The prohibition on Maysir, the Islamic prohibition on gambling and chance-based wealth transfer, is agreed upon across all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Maysir encompasses transactions in which wealth is transferred through chance rather than through productive exchange or legitimate commerce. Virtual casino gambling played for assets with documented real-world monetary value falls within this prohibition regardless of the virtual setting, because the economic substance of the transaction, the transfer of wealth through chance, is present.

The Sadd al Dhara’i principle, the classical doctrine requiring the closure of pathways to prohibited outcomes, informs CoinStudy’s Gambling or Betting red line for platform tokens. However, CoinStudy does not present Sadd al Dhara’i as automatically settling MANA’s classification. The principle requires that the connection between the means and the prohibited end be close and dominant, not remote or speculative. CoinStudy’s application of the principle to MANA rests on the three specific documented connections identified above: land purchase enabling gambling venue operation, wearable sales enabling gambling participation, and marketplace fee burns generated from gambling-related transactions. These connections are close and specific rather than remote or incidental, in CoinStudy’s assessment, because they involve MANA transactions directly enabling or arising from gambling activity rather than merely circulating in a broad economy that contains gambling.

CoinStudy acknowledges that scholars applying Sadd al Dhara’i might assess the directness of this connection differently, particularly in the context of a general-purpose platform where gambling represents one category of activity among many. The Sadd al Dhara’i analysis informs CoinStudy’s operational rule rather than conclusively settling the question under all scholarly approaches.

Islamic Finance Analysis

Because MANA fails the Gambling or Betting Layer 1 red line test under the CoinStudy HCS operational framework, Layer 2 numerical scoring is not conducted.

Gambling or Betting: Layer 1 Failure

The Gambling or Betting red line tests whether the token’s utility creates specific, documented transactional connections to gambling or betting activity sufficient to satisfy CoinStudy’s HCS operational rule for this test. Under CoinStudy’s framework, the rule is satisfied when a token’s own documented utility connects it to gambling infrastructure through specific identified transaction types, rather than only when gambling is the token’s exclusive or primary use.

For MANA, the three specific connections identified in the Core Mechanism section above satisfy this rule under CoinStudy’s operational framework: MANA used to purchase land on which gambling venues operate, MANA used to purchase gambling-access wearables through the marketplace, and MANA marketplace burns generated from gambling-related asset transactions. Each connection is specific and documented rather than inferred from general platform circulation. The existence of permissible activities on the same platform does not remove these specific connections from MANA’s utility profile.

This finding is CoinStudy’s operational classification under its HCS framework, informed by the Maysir prohibition and the Sadd al Dhara’i principle. Scholars applying proportionality frameworks, which weigh the ratio of permissible to prohibited platform activity, may assess this differently. The Chairman’s review is pending.

Ecosystem Riba Exposure, Haram Industry Token, Guaranteed or Contractual Interest Return, Synthetic Interest Products: All Passed

MANA has no native staking, no interest-bearing return mechanism, no embedded guaranteed interest, and no synthetic interest product in its token design. Virtual world infrastructure is not categorically a haram industry. All four remaining Layer 1 red lines are passed. The Haram classification rests solely on the Gambling or Betting finding.

Anticipated Scholarly Questions: Critical Islamic Finance Review

Scholar Question 1: Gambling is only one use of Decentraland. The platform also hosts art galleries, events, education, and commercial venues. Does the presence of gambling venues make the entire token Haram?

CoinStudy’s response: CoinStudy’s Gambling or Betting red line is not triggered by the mere presence of gambling somewhere in a broad ecosystem. It is triggered when the token’s own documented utility creates specific transactional connections to gambling infrastructure. For MANA, those connections are identified specifically: land purchases enabling gambling venue operation, wearable sales enabling gambling participation, and marketplace burns generated from gambling-related transactions. The coexistence of permissible activities does not remove these specific connections from MANA’s utility profile. CoinStudy acknowledges that scholars applying proportionality frameworks may reach a different conclusion, particularly if they assess the ratio of permissible to prohibited platform activity and find the prohibited share insufficient to classify the currency.

Scholar Question 2: The ICE Poker figures are from 2022. Is gambling still material in Decentraland in October 2026?

CoinStudy’s response: CoinStudy bases the Gambling or Betting finding on two distinct grounds. The first is the 2021 to 2022 historical evidence, which establishes that gambling reached structural scale within the platform at a named venue level with documented financial activity. The second is the documented continued presence of gambling infrastructure within Decentraland as of October 2026. CoinStudy does not assert that gambling represents the same share of platform activity today as at its 2022 peak, and does not assert a specific current activity measurement. The finding rests on the continued documented presence of gambling infrastructure and the specific MANA utility connections identified, not on a claim that gambling is currently dominant. CoinStudy acknowledges that if gambling infrastructure were to cease operating in Decentraland in a documented and verifiable way, the Gambling or Betting finding would require reassessment.

Scholar Question 3: MANA is a general-purpose currency. Should its Shariah classification be determined by the activities of third parties who happen to use the platform?

CoinStudy’s response: CoinStudy’s finding does not rest on the mere fact that third parties use MANA for gambling. It rests on the specific documented connections between MANA’s own utility, specifically land purchases and wearable marketplace transactions that are part of MANA’s documented function, and gambling infrastructure within the platform. The distinction matters: a currency is not made Haram simply because some people use it for prohibited purposes. But a currency whose own documented utility mechanisms create specific pathways to gambling infrastructure raises a different question under the Sadd al Dhara’i analysis, because the pathway is not incidental to the token’s design but is part of how the token functions. Whether this distinction is sufficient to classify a general-purpose currency at the token level is the genuine scholarly question, and scholars applying different frameworks may reach different conclusions.

Scholar Question 4: Virtual gambling using digital assets may be different from conventional gambling. Does Maysir apply?

CoinStudy’s response: The assets involved in Decentraland’s gambling ecosystem have documented real-world monetary value. ICE wearables traded for thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency markets. MANA and other tokens used within the ecosystem convert to other cryptocurrencies and fiat currency through established markets. The Maysir prohibition applies to any transaction in which wealth is transferred through chance regardless of whether the medium is physical or digital. The economic substance of the transaction, the transfer of assets with real-world value through a chance-based mechanism, is present in Decentraland’s documented gambling operations, placing those activities within the scope of the prohibition under CoinStudy’s analytical framework.

Scholar Question 5: Can a Muslim investor use MANA exclusively for permissible purposes such as purchasing land for a non-gambling business?

CoinStudy’s response: The HCS token-level classification is a screening determination about the instrument itself, not a ruling on every individual transaction. A Muslim investor may be able to structure their MANA use exclusively around permissible activities. Whether such individual use is permissible requires separate scholarly assessment and is not settled by the token-level HCS classification. CoinStudy does not issue individual fatwas. The Chairman’s review of this analysis is pending, and Muslim investors should seek individual scholarly guidance for any specific holding or transaction decision.

CoinStudy HCS Screening Results

Layer 1: Sharia Red Line Screening

Ecosystem Riba Exposure: ✅ Passed. MANA has no native staking, no interest-bearing return mechanism, and no synthetic interest product embedded in its design. Third-party yield products are external to the token design and not assessed here.

Gambling or Betting: ❌ FAILED under CoinStudy’s HCS operational framework. Decentraland hosts documented casino and gambling venues, including virtual poker rooms, within its virtual world. MANA’s own utility creates three specific documented transactional connections to this gambling infrastructure: MANA used to purchase land on which gambling venues operate, MANA used in marketplace transactions for gambling-access wearables, and MANA marketplace burns generated from gambling-related asset sales. Under CoinStudy’s HCS operational rule for this test, these specific connections satisfy the Gambling or Betting red line. The finding is informed by the Maysir prohibition and the Sadd al Dhara’i principle. It is CoinStudy’s operational classification rather than a universally agreed classical ruling, and scholars applying proportionality frameworks may assess this differently. Chairman review is pending.

Haram Industry Token: ✅ Passed. Virtual world infrastructure is not categorically a haram industry. The Haram finding attaches through the Gambling or Betting red line.

Guaranteed or Contractual Interest Return: ✅ Passed. No contractual interest return is promised or embedded in the MANA token design.

Synthetic Interest Products: ✅ Passed. No perpetual swap or synthetic interest mechanism is native to the MANA token design.

Layer 1 result: one red line failure. Automatic Haram classification. Layer 2 scoring not conducted.

Layer 2: HCS Score Breakdown

Layer 2 numerical scoring is not conducted when any Layer 1 red line fails under the CoinStudy HCS operational framework.

What Is Permissible and What Is Haram

Activities Requiring Individual Scholarly Assessment:

Purchasing MANA for DAO governance participation only = Requires individual scholarly assessment ⚠️ CoinStudy’s token-level HCS classification is Haram pending Chairman confirmation; individual scholarly guidance is required before any MANA holding decision regardless of intended use

Purchasing and developing virtual land in Decentraland for documented non-gambling permissible commercial purposes = Requires individual scholarly assessment ⚠️ the permissibility of a specific land development activity is not automatically determined by the token-level HCS classification; individual scholarly guidance is required

Haram under CoinStudy’s HCS operational framework:

Holding MANA as an investment token = Haram under CoinStudy’s HCS classification ❌ MANA fails the Gambling or Betting Layer 1 red line under CoinStudy’s operational framework; this is a token-level research classification pending Chairman confirmation

Purchasing land parcels in Decentraland for the purpose of operating or hosting gambling venues = Haram ❌ these transactions directly establish gambling infrastructure within the platform

Purchasing gambling-access wearables through the Decentraland marketplace using MANA = Haram ❌ these transactions directly enable participation in gambling activity

Participating in ICE Poker or any casino, wagering, or betting experience within Decentraland involving assets with real-world monetary value = Haram ❌ virtual casino activity involving assets with real-world value falls within the Maysir prohibition; this is established separately from the token-level HCS classification and applies to the activity itself

Lending gambling-access wearables to other players in exchange for a share of gambling winnings = Haram ❌ this arrangement directly involves participation in the financial returns of a prohibited gambling activity

Important Questions for Muslim Investors

Do I understand that MANA’s Haram classification under CoinStudy’s HCS framework rests on three specific documented transactional connections between MANA’s utility and gambling infrastructure in Decentraland, rather than on the general assertion that gambling exists somewhere in the platform’s economy? Do I understand that CoinStudy’s Gambling or Betting red line for platform tokens does not use a numerical materiality threshold and that scholars applying proportionality frameworks may reach a different conclusion? Do I understand that the historical ICE Poker figures from 2021 to 2022 are cited as evidence of structural scale rather than as current activity measurements, and that the finding rests on the continued documented presence of gambling infrastructure combined with the specific MANA utility connections identified? Do I understand that the Chairman Dr. Usman Quddus has not yet completed his review of this specific analysis and that the current classification is CoinStudy’s research position pending Chairman confirmation? Am I aware that the token-level Haram classification is a screening determination about the instrument itself and that the permissibility of specific individual uses of MANA or Decentraland requires separate individual scholarly assessment?

Shariah Board Chairman’s Ruling

CoinStudy’s Chairman, Dr. Usman Quddus, PhD in Islamic Studies & Finance, has not yet completed his review of this specific MANA analysis. The Haram classification presented here is CoinStudy’s research position based on the HCS methodology and will be updated upon completion of the Chairman’s review. Muslim investors should treat this analysis as CoinStudy’s current research finding pending Chairman confirmation, and should seek individual scholarly guidance for any investment decision.

Chairman Review: Pending ⏳

CoinStudy will update this section upon completion of the Chairman’s review.

Final Verdict

Decentraland (MANA) is classified as Haram under the CoinStudy Halal Crypto Standard, pending Chairman confirmation.

MANA fails the Gambling or Betting Layer 1 red line test under CoinStudy’s HCS operational framework. Decentraland hosts documented casino and gambling venues within its virtual world, and MANA’s own utility creates three specific documented transactional connections to this gambling infrastructure: MANA used to purchase land on which gambling venues operate, MANA used in marketplace transactions for gambling-access wearables that enable participation in virtual poker, and MANA marketplace burns generated from gambling-related asset sales. Under CoinStudy’s HCS operational rule for this test, these specific connections satisfy the Gambling or Betting red line.

CoinStudy does not apply a numerical materiality threshold. The finding rests on whether MANA’s own utility creates specific documented connections to gambling infrastructure rather than on a claim that gambling is the dominant use of the platform. The historical 2022 figures establishing structural-scale gambling within Decentraland are cited as evidence of documented venue-level gambling infrastructure, not as current activity measurements. The finding is informed by the Maysir prohibition and the Sadd al Dhara’i principle as applied through CoinStudy’s operational framework. Scholars applying proportionality frameworks may assess this differently.

All other Layer 1 red lines are passed. The Haram classification rests solely on the Gambling or Betting finding. Chairman Dr. Usman Quddus has not yet completed his review of this analysis. Muslim investors considering MANA for any purpose should seek individual scholarly guidance, and Muslim investors who currently hold MANA should seek individual scholarly guidance regarding their specific circumstances.

Read detailed analysis and concepts here:

Is Chainlink Halal?
Is Bitcoin Halal?
Is Ethereum Halal?
Is BNB Halal?
Is Quack AI Halal?
Are Perpetual DEX Airdrops Halal?
Is Crypto Haram? Scholar Responds
Market Volatility vs Contractual Gharar

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for educational and research purposes only based on CoinStudy’s HCS methodology. The Haram classification applies to MANA at the token level under CoinStudy’s HCS operational framework and is pending Chairman confirmation. The Gambling or Betting finding rests on three specific documented transactional connections between MANA’s utility and gambling infrastructure in Decentraland, assessed under CoinStudy’s operational rule for this test rather than a universally agreed classical ruling. Historical gambling activity figures from 2021 to 2022 are cited as evidence of structural-scale gambling infrastructure and not as current activity measurements. The token-level classification is a screening determination about the instrument itself; the permissibility of specific individual uses of MANA or Decentraland requires separate scholarly assessment. CoinStudy does not issue personal fatwas or financial advice. Please consult a qualified Islamic scholar for individual guidance on your specific situation.