-AB

What is the concept of “click to win”?
“Push-to-win” projects are mobile games that pay users in cryptocurrencies for performing simple tasks, which often include tapping on the screen. Users can do this to collect crops, in-game minerals, or other resources used in the game.
Push-to-win games are a growing part of the GameFi sector, which combines financial incentives with fun gaming.

In modern financial markets, activity is not simply driven by buyers and sellers. A more accurate framework distinguishes between makers and takers, a distinction that better explains how liquidity forms and how prices are discovered.
Today, the term “market maker” generally refers to professional and institutional entities. These firms are highly specialized financial operators with significant capital, advanced infrastructure, and deep expertise in managing risk across multiple venues and assets.
Because of their central role, market makers are often misunderstood. They are sometimes perceived as price manipulators who manufacture volume or steer markets in a specific direction. In reality, professional market makers do not create inefficiencies. Instead, they identify and capitalize on inefficiencies that already exist, earning returns by continuously providing liquidity and narrowing price gaps.
Market making plays a critical role in reducing friction within digital asset markets. By consistently placing buy and sell orders, market makers supply order book liquidity. This liquidity is commonly measured by the bid-ask spread, or the price difference between buyers and sellers. A wider spread reflects higher illiquidity and higher implicit trading costs for participants.
In a highly liquid market, trading costs are minimized. Market makers help bridge the gap between buyers and sellers by absorbing short-term imbalances in supply and demand. In exchange, they earn a small spread, which compensates them for inventory risk, volatility exposure, and operational costs.
Despite its importance, market making is frequently perceived as opaque. This perception is partly due to the complexity of trading strategies used by large participants, including hedging, portfolio rebalancing, and speculative positioning. Some firms further obscure their activity through dealer markets or non-displayed liquidity venues, which adds to the lack of transparency.
This limited visibility has contributed to distorted perceptions of market makers as extractive rather than additive participants. In practice, high-quality market makers enhance market efficiency, improve price discovery, and lower execution costs for all participants.
However, not all market making is equal. Market participants often struggle to evaluate the quality of liquidity providers and to distinguish between those that deliver sustainable liquidity and those that engage in predatory behavior. The absence of clear frameworks for assessment has increased the need for education and transparency.
This report aims to address these challenges by clarifying the role of market making in digital asset markets. It introduces the core principles of professional market making, outlines the structure of modern digital asset markets, and examines the business models employed by market makers.
The analysis focuses on intermediated market structures rather than automated market makers (AMMs). It examines interactions between investors and liquidity providers across centralized exchanges, decentralized exchanges, and hybrid market structures. Hybrid markets, in particular, offer a realistic representation of digital asset trading, combining electronic order books with human or institutional liquidity provision.
Finally, the report provides perspective on how market making in digital assets differs from traditional financial markets and offers insight into how this function is likely to evolve as the ecosystem matures

Most people in crypto talk about speed, hype, and narratives, but very few talk about where value actually settles over time. Infrastructure rarely looks exciting in its early stages because it doesn’t need constant attention to function. Plasma is a good example of that dynamic. It isn’t trying to reinvent everything or promise exponential returns overnight. It focuses on a specific problem that keeps growing as the industry scales: friction between chains.
As more applications rely on cross-chain activity, the weakest point is no longer the app itself, but the layers underneath. Routing, settlement, and interoperability become the bottlenecks. Plasma positions itself directly in that layer, where transactions need to be reliable, cheap, and predictable. This isn’t about trends or memes. It’s about building rails that don’t break when usage increases.
What stands out with is how closely the token is tied to real network activity. There are no complex gimmicks or artificial incentives designed to create short-term demand. The value comes from usage, from the network actually being used to move value across chains. That’s usually overlooked early, because markets tend to reward noise first and function later.
Infrastructure doesn’t pump early. It gets repriced once demand becomes unavoidable. That’s how most foundational layers have historically played out. Plasma seems comfortable operating in that phase, building quietly while attention shifts elsewhere. When systems mature, the projects that survive are usually the ones that focused on reliability instead of attention.
@plasma
$XPL
#plasma