there’s a useful distinction in MINT’s current XP system that changes how I look at its progression layer. XP is not simply a universal counter attached to every action across the platform. The amount of XP can vary by product and game, with weighting influenced by the economics of the activity. Some activities can receive reduced XP or no XP, and the live Rewards Dashboard determines the rules that currently apply. The more interesting detail is what sits outside that progression loop. MINT’s current documentation states that prediction markets do not earn XP unless MINT explicitly changes that configuration. That means the platform is not treating every form of user activity as interchangeable when assigning progression. I think that distinction matters from a product-design perspective. If XP is supposed to represent meaningful progression, then applying one identical formula everywhere would make the metric easier to understand but potentially less representative of the different products underneath it. MINT instead has a configurable layer where eligibility, weighting, temporary boosts and rank requirements can change according to the current reward structure. That also makes the XP system more than a simple points counter. It becomes a policy layer sitting between user activity and progression. @PlayOnMint is effectively separating the question of “what can users do?” from “what counts toward progression?” Those two things do not have to be identical, and the current XP architecture makes that separation explicit. The open question is how consistently users can understand those rules as the product continues adding different forms of activity. A progression system only works as a behavioral layer when its logic remains legible to the people using it. This is an informational/reference post and does not encourage participation.