XCAD Network
XCAD Network - Browser Extension
Total ratings
4.27
(Rating count:
193)Review summary
These summaries are automatically generated weekly using AI based on recent user reviews.
Chrome Web Store does not verify user reviews, so some user reviews may be inaccurate,
spammy, or outdated. Pros
- Great design
- Fun to play
- Good app
- Sleek design
Cons
- Accusations of being a scam
- Full centralization leading to account bans
- Poorly defined Terms of Service
- Claims of unfair treatment and exploitation of the system
Most mentioned
- Concerns about account bans and negative effects on users
- Experiences with different battle strategies
- Issues with the game's economy and rewards
Upgrade to see all 256 reviews
User reviews
Recent rating average:
3.40
All time rating average:
4.27
Upgrade to see all 256 reviews
Rating filters
5 star 4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
| Date | Author | Rating | Lang | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-05 |  | | ||
| 2024-12-01 |  | | en | scam project. i watched many videos but no count no reward |
| 2024-10-21 |  | | en | popular here bhai love them |
| 2024-10-21 |  | | en | Voce soon moon? |
| 2024-10-21 |  | | en | Good app |
| 2024-10-19 |  | | en | Finally, every accusation you made I counteracted and proved my innocence. I will provide an example below from my email. “Your third point accusing us of "knowingly committing damaging actions to the NRG economy and community": Please explicitly outline exactly what we did to "damage" the NRG economy and/or the community. What kind of "damaging" actions did we commit? Analysis: As we mentioned in the testimony, at no point at all we did sell ANY of the tokens earned from the battles. We also clearly outlined our intentions for the use of the tokens, stating that we were going to put them in the LP to help stabilize the price. Its clear that the team haven't considered the judgement of our actions because if we were the "malicious" exploiters that the team accused us of being, then we would have went and sold all our tokens. By that point everyone would be panic selling and lose all faith in the project. After all, this is what a lot of crypto whales do to scare investors to sell their bags, but we definitely aren't like them and this can be clearly proven by our transaction history that is readily available for you to see on the blockchain. Also, we have been around in this project since the very beginning and have provided endless amounts of support to the community and suggestions to the team to improve the Energy Area for everyone.” (edited) [10:47] Throughout every email where I asked you questions, you never once answered my questions. I will provide some examples below from my email. “Questions from the testimony that have yet to be answered. 1) Why weren't the battles being monitored more carefully? If they were, the team could have issued us a warning and told us that they considered what we were doing was wrong. 2) Why can't the team at the very least reinstate our accounts seeing as the supposed "exploit" has been fixed? What does the team gain by keeping our accounts banned? Especially when you have no guidelines anywhere that mention about permanent bans, it feels like the decision to ban our accounts was made abruptly and the team don't want to backtrack the decision at the risk of appearing weak in their eyes. Given the circumstances, I think the community would be okay to have our accounts reinstated with the condition of the NRG tokens being burnt. 3) What's the point of the battle mode if winning more than losing is considered an exploit? A huge portion of the burn you are doing this week is a consequence of all the battles and leveling up that we did. Where do you expect future burns to come from if there is no activity going on in the app? Especially with no advertising on twitter or other media platforms, I feel it was our mission to mint and battle with as many nerds as possible in order to compensate for the lack of new users. From my perspective, I feel this has had a positive impact on the economy, not a negative or harmful one. [10:50] The reason for you didn’t answer them is because you couldn't and you know you are wrong. You then just ban me using your very vague statement in your Terms of Service (TOS) saying “We may terminate or suspend your account immediately, without prior notice or liability, for any reason whatsoever, including without limitation, if you breach these Terms and Conditions. Upon termination, your right to use the service will cease immediately”. The whole TOS is outdated and is just copied from XCAD. Anyone who reads my review, please go read how bad the XCAD/Energy Area TOS is. |
| 2024-10-19 |  | | en | Thirdly, throughout your testimony, you have accused me of many things. Firstly “illegitimately botting our system”. Botting is “a software application that is programmed to do certain tasks”. I never did, but even if I did, how could you prove that I did? Does that mean that the application is so bad it’s not safe from exterior apps or programs which for example could allow a user to bot? Next you accused me of “...purposefully manipulated their NFTs to this specific level and proceeded to use them in NFT battles.” Again, how could I purposefully manipulate my NFT's levels when XP is randomly applied as it says in your guidebook? Also, does it say in your guidebook on how a user should apply XP? Are you admitting that XP is not allocated randomly? Evidently, when I was levelling up my nerds, XP can consistently go into the same stat more than others. You give the user the ability to buy instants and boosters. Don’t go complaining at the user when one stat gets to max level before others do. Then was “The malicious nature of this attack has had a negative impact on the Energy Area ecosystem...”. What evidence do you have shows that my actions negatively impacted the Energy Area? How could my action of accumulating NRG, minting and burning NRG have a negative impact on the Ecosystem? You should be thanking me for making sure NRG was being circulated as I kept the price from dropping. What’s funny actually is after my accounts got banned, the price of NRG dropped faster than it ever had done since its release. After was “share and distribute knowledge of the exploit to other community members, as well as attempting to recreate and discover new exploits in the NRG application.” Other than one person who was not associated with myself who knew of these battle strategies, please provide me with evidence on what community members I shared information with? I can tell you now that even with the battle arena being so poorly designed, there are no other strategies (or you would call exploits) to be discovered. Even with the battle arena being as simple as it is, how could anyone break it more than it already is. Final part is above! Stay tuned to find the real truth about this project |
| 2024-10-19 |  | | en | Firstly, what I want to know is, if using my main two methods of battling for over a year (as I worked my way up the rarities starting from common) and then when you introduce the Iconic nerd and 3x Battle Token where I start earning even more NRG, why do you only decide then that what I've been doing this whole time is an ''exploit''? Is it because I was making too much NRG? If so, why make the iconic nerd with 10x higher rewards than the legendary? Also on this, why make the 3x Battle Token? It's clear you wanted to convince more people to try the battle mode. Even so, why make an iconic 3x Battle Token? When you made your tweet of “Over 250,000 battles have now been completed in the Energy Area!”, who do you think made that possible? ME! On one of my accounts, I had over 10,000 wins and a total of over 20,000 battles. If you put that into perspective of how many battles I did across my 7 accounts. It's at least 100,000 battles. I alone hold around 50% of the total battles you go boasting about on twitter. Did you not think what possible outcomes could happen if someone was to win more games than they lost? You knew that winning using a 3x Battle Token is 90,000 NRG (at the time of the Iconic nerd release was roughly $30). Secondly, from the guidebook, it doesn't state ANYWHERE what is allowed and not allowed in the battle arena. It doesn't state you are unable to find battle strategies of your own and use them. It doesn’t state how many battles a user is allowed to commence. It doesn’t state anything other than just how the battle arena works. For example, when I started battling and my only reason to battle was to level up my nerds, I used two accounts to battle myself. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong about this method as tokens are burned. I decided to battle myself so that I risk less tokens to level up than matching with other random human users. Although, it doesn’t say on guidebook whether this is allowed or not. In regards to how many battles, if you didn’t want users to have the ability to battle consistently and potentially level up their nerds much faster than just watching daily videos, why didn’t you implement an amount of battles allowed per day? This is your own fault that many good and bad strategies were formed from the battle arena. For example, going back to the Max Level Nerds method, if there was a limit to how many battles an account could commence per day, it would give users who are trying to battle with the intention to play the game fairly to avoid people who are clearly just exploiting the battle arena. Simply put, it’s your fault that your guidebook is very vague and does not contain any rules about the battle arena. Due to that, you banned me for discovering two strategies just where I won more than I lost. Although, you never banned any users who battled and simply stole tokens from under levelled nerds or even changed the coding of battling with max levelled nerds. All you needed to do was just not allow nerds with max level enter the battle arena, simple as that. Just to put out there again, the only reason you haven’t is because the outcome of any PVP battle where someone wins results in a portion of the tokens being burned. So you don't care if the battle was fair or not. Part 6 is above. Stay tuned to find the real truth about this project. |
| 2024-10-17 | | | en | Great design, fun to play |
| 2024-10-17 |  | | en | I like XCAD |
Upgrade to see all 256 reviews