What the latest XP distribution confirms
Paradex’s 25 September update reports four million XP for activity from 16–22 September, allocated across about 3,700 wallets. It separately reports referral and affiliate allocations and says options trading received extra weighting.
This is stronger evidence of a running program than an old season-launch page. It also shows why a simple volume-to-points calculator can mislead: the activity mix and weighting matter, not just a wallet’s raw turnover.
The cash contest has a different entry
For the separate $1,000 contest, the announcement asks users to post a Paradex RFQ quote that beats Deribit and tag @paradex. Ten winners receive $100 each. A 28 September reminder confirms the offer is still being promoted.
The reviewed posts do not state that executing a trade is required. A useful submission would preserve enough context to understand the comparison: market, size, buy or sell direction and capture time. Otherwise two screenshots can show different prices simply because they represent different requests.
Compare the same request on both venues
Paradex’s September release notes describe improvements to RFQ price comparison, including cases where Deribit cannot fill the entire requested size. That makes executable size an important part of interpreting the display.
Consider a hypothetical request for ten contracts. A lower price available for one contract is not automatically a better quote for the whole request. Keep size consistent before treating a price difference as meaningful. This comparison method also helps separate a useful execution observation from an attractive but incomplete screenshot.
Keep award timing distinct from entry timing
The contest says winners will be announced on 2 October at 12:00 ET, equivalent to 16:00 UTC on that date. It does not publish a separate submission cutoff in the reviewed announcement. Do not turn the announcement time into a guaranteed last moment to enter.
Record XP, contest entry and any confirmed cash award separately. They have different qualification evidence and should not be combined into an assumed yield.