I wanted to share an idea for improving the community voting process .
To read the suggestion, click on the > button to expand the details.
Shuffling of Projects in Community Pool
I agree with the suggestion of randomly shuffling the projects every time the voting page is refreshed , rather than using static numbers or labels. This will help ensure that all projects have an equal chance of being seen and considered by voters . ( This was suggested by @suterliakov on This Post )
I support this
I don’t support this
Not sure
0voters
Community Leaderboard and/or prices, for Researching and finding best Projects
I think it could be interesting to create a leaderboard and reward system for community members who make accurate predictions about which projects will win . For example, if I pick OpenATM as my prediction and it ends up winning first place, I could be awarded 100 points . If I pick Turuverse and it comes in second place, I would receive 90 points . If I pick a project that doesn’t end up winning, I would receive 0 points . This could incentivize people to research and carefully consider their votes, rather than just picking random projects . At the end of the Devpost results, the top 10-12 users with the most points could win a prize . This would be a fun way to encourage people to stay active on the forum and engage with the community .
I support this
I don’t support this
Not sure
0voters
Judges Review/Feedback about Projects
I also have a suggestion for improving the judges voting process. I think it would be really helpful if the judges provided some feedback on the projects they considered for awards. This could include a brief summary of their thoughts on each project, including what they liked about the project and any areas for improvement they identified. This kind of information would be really valuable for all the participants, as it would help them to understand what they did well and where they could improve in the future. It would also make the process more transparent and fair, as participants could see how their project was evaluated and why it was or was not chosen as a winner.
I support this
I don’t support this
Not sure
0voters
A change to the way projects are judged and awarded prizes in the hackathon
Currently, projects are judged based on their accomplishments during the hackathon period. However, we have noticed that some projects that have won prizes have not delivered as much as expected, and it has come to our attention that some have won due to promises made rather than actual accomplishments. We believe that the hackathon prize is not just a reward, but also a way to ensure that good projects have the funding they need to continue development and delivery. As such, we think that every project should not only build something during the hackathon, but also prepare a roadmap for the “after hackathon” period. The prize funds could then be released to the winning teams as they reach milestones on this roadmap. It will be up to each team to decide what their milestones will be, and it will be up to the community and the judges to decide if these milestones (and what has been accomplished during the hackathon) are sufficient to deserve a prize. Teams that give up on their projects after receiving the initial payment at the end of the hackathon will not receive the rest of the prize funds.
Simple Example :
Hackathon Project Testnet Deployment : $0
Mainnet Deployment : 30% of Prize ( Must deploy on Mainnet to claim Prize after winning )
Running since 1 Month : 20% of Prize
Continuous Active Development ( Adding More Features after deployment ) : 30% of Prize
I wanted to give a shoutout to the community members who have shared their suggestions for improving the voting process in this thread . Thank you for taking the time to contribute your ideas and help make the voting experience better for everyone .
Note that I am active on this forum partly because of my project strx, which is solely dependent on Tron. Therefore, I will also try my best to spend some of my time here to help the Tron ecosystem grow .
If this thread isn’t needed, please feel free to delete it @admin.hackathon.
I like the first idea. Also removes the advantage of being on top of the list.
For the winners prediction I’m not too sure. Since you can change your vote if you want, some might just target prizes and vote accordingly.
Also some projects might successfully bring a lot of activity without especially bringing voters. People may assume that with that much activity on the post, they will win, and vote for them. While small projects struggling to get comments will probably be ignore during the voting period.
I don’t think we can change our votes once they have been cast, @admin.hackathon, enlighten us on this.
Also, the results of a devpost or judge are not necessarily the same as the level of activity or popularity of a particular entry on the forum. As we can see from Season 3, the winners were not necessarily the most active threads. Is this correct?
I like the first one, not the second one. It will result in a “beauty contest”, where the voters are incentivized to just vote on the most popular projects from the most established teams
For the 3 first seasons it was possible to change your votes as many times as you wanted until the end of the period.
My comment was about the idea of a leaderboard and reward system for the community based on how they voted. No devpost. This season system to incentivise the community was pretty good imo. It was also relayed on Twitter and Telegram. I’m surprised that we didn’t have more activity but it’s probably a side effect of the bearmarket.
Ah, okay.
Yes, the community incentives are helpful. However, given the vote tampering and other issues, a new prize pool to motivate the community based on their diligence and research will also inspire more people to find the best projects rather than reading only the project titles and casting votes based only on those titles.
However, if the second suggestion doesn’t appeal to others, I shall remove it.
hola, creo que el proceso de votaciĂłn es una cosa que se tiene que mirar minuciosamente desde la comunidad, el problema de los votos no son los miembros activos, viene cuando se presentan los proyectos y los nuevos usuarios votan por el proyecto por el cual se ha inscrito en el foro.
DarĂa como alternativa, que los usuarios menos frecuentes y nuevos, realizaran un tipo de test sobre todos los proyectos que se presentan para asĂ determinar, que se han observado y estudiado estos, para poder acceder al voto, ya que el proceso que se presenta en estos momentos que es alcanzar el nivel básico, no da garantias de que se hayan informado sobre tales trabajos.Next Season : Suggestions for Improvements
I wonder if it’s technically possible on this forum software though. I mean it’s definitely possible for the developers of Discourse (the forum software provider) to implement it, but I would be surprised if Tron as a user of the forum software could do it.
I also have a suggestion for improving the judges voting process. I think it would be really helpful if the judges provided some feedback on the projects they considered for awards. This could include a brief summary of their thoughts on each project, including what they liked about the project and any areas for improvement they identified. This kind of information would be really valuable for all the participants, as it would help them to understand what they did well and where they could improve in the future. It would also make the process more transparent and fair, as participants could see how their project was evaluated and why it was or was not chosen as a winner.
Hola, estoy completamente de acuerdo contigo, es bueno presentar el porque se ha elegido el proyecto y el que no ha recibido el premio, explicar el motivo, ya que todos deben poder corregir lo que se considera no elegible. Es necesario que los participantes comprueben la evaluaciĂłn.
Firstly, regarding the reshuffling, I don’t think that any preference was given to the projects at the top positions. I used to think that projects in the hackathon are being positioned according to when they submit their entry. For instance, the first project to submit entry will be in the first position while the 20th project to submit entry will be at the 20th position. If it’s so, then I think the process is fair enough but if it’s not, then @admin.hackathon should communicate to us how projects are positioned.
Finally, regarding the judges communicating with the community on how they voted for projects, i share in the same view as that will make the community to understand reasons for any project winning the judges vote and equally make project developers understand the strength and weaknesses of their projects from an external view, in this case, body of experts (judges).
,
.
, rather than using static numbers or labels. This will help ensure that all projects have an equal chance of being seen and considered by voters 
. ( This was suggested by @suterliakov on This Post )
. For example, if I pick OpenATM as my prediction and it ends up winning first place, I could be awarded 100 points 
. If I pick Turuverse and it comes in second place, I would receive 90 points 
. If I pick a project that doesn’t end up winning, I would receive 0 points 
. This could incentivize people to research and carefully consider their votes, rather than just picking random projects 
. This would be a fun way to encourage people to stay active on the forum and engage with the community 
.
. Thank you for taking the time to contribute your ideas and help make the voting experience better for everyone 
.
.
.
, if they cant, then i think they should do balloting of the positions, the number you pick will be your number in the voting list.