Conclusion

Risk Assessment: From a security perspective, Luck.io’s current design presents a moderate to high risk to fairness and user trust. While no direct exploits (e.g., hacks or vulnerabilities) were identified in the on-chain code, the architecture choices introduce these key risks:

• Fairness Risk (Critical): The central control over RNG and game logic means a rogue operator or compromised insider could secretly manipulate game outcomes without immediate detection [11]. This is a critical risk because it strikes at the core promise of the platform (provable fairness). The jackpot anomaly, though not proof of wrongdoing, exemplifies why this risk is not just theoretical.

• Custodial/Financial Risk (High): Users’ funds, though on-chain, are managed by the casino’s contracts. The team’s ability to pause or upgrade contracts, and the lack of strict reserve safeguards, means there is a high counterparty risk similar to a traditional casino. In extreme cases, withdrawals could be halted or funds moved in ways users don’t expect (even if only temporarily) [40].

• Centralization Risk (High): The dependency on the team for oracle operation, contract governance, and maintenance concentrates a lot of power in one entity. Should that entity act maliciously or incompetently, the platform’s integrity could fail. This risk is high in impact (it affects all users) but can be mitigated by decentralizing those roles.

• Transparency Risk (Medium): The opaque audit and closed-source code present a medium risk to security assurance. It’s possible the code is secure (Halborn did review it), but without public scrutiny, vulnerabilities or backdoors (intentional or not) might go unnoticed by the community. The impact is potentially critical (if an undisclosed issue exists), but we rate it medium due to some external audit presence.

• Operational Risk (Low/Medium): Typical technical risks like smart contract bugs were largely addressed by the professional audit (only informational issues remain like off-chain logic reliance) [11]. We did not find evidence of unresolved critical vulnerabilities in the on-chain programs. So pure technical bug risk is low to medium (given complexity of vault logic, etc., but Halborn found no remaining critical flaws).

Overall, in its current state we would not consider Luck.io trustless. It has significant centralization points that a security-conscious user should weigh. That said, these are issues that can be addressed. Below we outline recommendations to reduce or eliminate these risks. Implementing these would move Luck.io closer to a truly fair and decentralized model and align it with best practices in blockchain gaming.