Short-term absorption of nearly 3,000 ETH still cannot hide the explosion risk of the blockchain game xPet!

Author: Kasou Kazoku
Recently, a blockchain game called xPet has rapidly gained popularity on Twitter, becoming a hot topic on social media. This project has attracted attention due to its viral spread and rapidly growing user base, with some commentators describing it as a "scab" in the Web3 space. xPet cleverly combines gaming and social elements, successfully capturing the attention of numerous users within just two weeks of its launch. Thanks to the resurgence of the GameFi sector and its unique mechanism design, xPet has already raised 2,785 ETH, approximately 6.58 million USD, making it a project of significant interest recently.
However, as this craze intensifies, concerns regarding the security of xPet have gradually surfaced. Recent discussions have raised voices suggesting that xPet might swallow the ETH users deposit for lending, triggering worries about its security risks. This accusation not only draws attention to xPet's financial transparency and operational security but also poses a severe challenge to the project's credibility.
In this article, we will delve into the mechanisms of xPet and analyze its potential risks to answer the critical question: "Is xPet really safe?"

Beneath the Innovative Mechanism Lies a Huge Vulnerability in Fund and Privacy Security

The emerging xPet pet game on the Arbitrum platform has quickly stirred waves in the community with its innovative gameplay. Drawing inspiration from the concept of Tipcoin and elements from the popular game Fren Pet on the Base chain, xPet cleverly combines the joy of raising and nurturing pets with the profit potential of digital currencies. The uniqueness of this game lies in its browser plugin format, requiring players to log in through their Twitter accounts, making game progress closely tied to social media activity.
The core gameplay of xPet includes raising pets, upgrading factory levels, and completing specific tasks on Twitter to earn rewards. The game's upgrade mechanism requires pets to reach level seven before they can start producing $Berry, which is key to further converting it into $BPET and realizing profits. To upgrade pets, players need to pay with $XPET or $BPET tokens, which can only be obtained in the early stages of the game by depositing ETH and borrowing, or purchasing in specific trading pools.

However, this economic model that ties user funds to social media activity may seem like a cross-industry innovation on the surface, but it could hide potential landmines for privacy and fund security. The close binding of players' gaming experiences to their Twitter accounts means that every in-game action could be exposed to the public eye on social platforms, posing a potential threat to personal privacy. Furthermore, the game design may encourage players to be excessively active on Twitter to earn game rewards, which could alter users' social media behavior habits and even impact their online social health.
A deeper exploration of xPet's economic model reveals that players are essentially investing real ETH, accompanied by the uncertain risks of market fluctuations. The value of the game tokens is influenced by both the game's attractiveness and market recognition, both of which are highly variable. Therefore, as we analyze xPet's economic mechanisms, we must ask a fundamental question: Is this a bold innovation in the future financial game rules, or a complex maze that could trigger fund security and privacy risks? In this digital currency-based world, every seemingly game-like operation should be a rigorously considered investment decision.

xPet Contract Vulnerabilities: Arbitrary Token Issuance and Asset Over-Concentration Will Damage User Rights

Behind the glamorous facade of xPet, the operational and management mechanisms of its main contract hide secrets. As the nerve center of the game's economy, the main contract handles the intricate lending transactions between ETH and $XPET, yet the potential risks brought by its upgradability cannot be underestimated. The project's choice to keep the logic contract code private casts a shadow over the bright market, leaving people to speculate about potential logical flaws and security defects.
Upon further investigation of the $XPET token contract, we find that while it inherits the standard ERC20 and AccessControl contracts, it still harbors risks. The design of the contract automatically sets the deployer as the administrator, creating a centralized control point. This concentration of power could lead to disastrous consequences if the administrator's account is compromised. The liquidity of the tokens is also restricted, as all tokens are initially minted to the deployer's address and can only be transferred through specific functions. Additionally, key functions like withdraw and convert lack event emissions, which is a neglect of transparency in the blockchain world, making it challenging to track token flows.

The design of the $BPET token contract is also worth discussing. Without a minting cap, the deployer can issue tokens at will, and this unrestricted power could lead to excessive inflation of the token economy and value evaporation. The lack of role management is another unresolved issue, as there is no mechanism to ensure timely transfer or emergency revocation of power, which is an unforgivable security risk in the blockchain world.

Turning to xPet's social media strategy, we see a reward mechanism that contradicts Twitter's policies. Since xPet requires users to comment with the text "xPet" on Twitter to earn game rewards, the developer agreement of Twitter prohibits the generation of spam through Twitter-related developer products. This not only distorts the natural flow of content but may also violate platform rules. If this practice leads to the game being banned, the fundamental functions of the game will cease, and the time and resources invested by players will be wasted.
Beneath the glamorous exterior of the xPet project, we see a series of risk factors that not only test players' judgment but also challenge the sustainability of the project. xPet needs to tread carefully on the path of innovation, ensuring that its technological foundation and operational strategies can withstand the tests of the market and time. For players involved, staying vigilant and being prepared for potential risks is an indispensable wise choice before participating.

Hopefully, xPet Runs Smoothly, but the Entire Industry Needs to Sound the Alarm from This Crisis

In examining the xPet blockchain game project, we are drawn to its innovative aura and bold integration with social media. However, beneath the shiny exterior, we also reveal a series of potential risk points, from technical vulnerabilities to operational centralization, and potential conflicts with social media policies. These findings serve as important warnings for anyone interested in blockchain technology and digital currencies.
We must recognize that in this rapidly evolving field, innovation is essential, but equally necessary is rigorous risk management and a commitment to transparency. For players, understanding the internal mechanisms and potential risks of the games they participate in is the first step in protecting their investments. For developers, earning the trust of the community and maintaining the long-term viability of the project requires greater attention to contract security, user privacy, and compliance.
As we conclude our discussion of the xPet project, we remind all blockchain participants, whether developers or users, to continuously educate themselves, understand industry best practices, and remain cautious with any investment decisions. The future belongs to those who are prepared to move steadily in the digital age.