Judging

The process needs to make sure that a diverse expertise of judges that focus on the areas we wish to address as a hackathon

Pre-presentation

Judges are briefed about each participating team’s idea and have been given feedback on the teams by the mentors and SMEs who have interacted with the team (Using the DISCORD channel private teams’ areas)

Presentation

Each team has up to 6-minute window to present their idea and demo it. Each judge gets to have max 1 question to each participating team. Total questions time is 2min per team.

Scoring

Each judge will enter a score (1-5) in the following categories (see above for definitions). Each category is weighted the same.

Scoring Guide

The scoring guide below may be used as a template when scoring for each category

1. Relevance & Impact

Does the project address a meaningful real-world problem within the hackathon themes (AI, Blockchain, Fintech, Gaming, Creative Industries)? What measurable social or business impact does it propose?

• 5 – Excellent: Directly addresses hackathon themes with a strong, clearly articulated impact (both social and business). High potential for positive change.

• 4 – Good: Well aligned with themes; clear impact, though with moderate reach or limited scope.

• 3 – Satisfactory: Relevant but somewhat generic; impact is unclear or not well substantiated.

• 2 – Weak: Only partially relevant; limited or speculative impact.

• 1 – Poor: Minimal relevance; no meaningful impact identified.

2. Innovation & Future Readiness

How original and future-oriented is the idea? Does it leverage cutting-edge AI/Blockchain in an inventive way?

• 5 – Excellent: Highly original, breakthrough concept with strong potential to shape future trends; effectively applies advanced AI/Blockchain concepts.

• 4 – Good: Creative idea with some novel aspects; uses emerging tech meaningfully.

• 3 – Satisfactory: Moderately innovative; uses existing technologies in a standard way.

• 2 – Weak: Lacks originality; minimal innovation or future orientation.

• 1 – Poor: No evident innovation; repurposed or outdated concept.

3. Functionality, Feasibility & Scalability

Is there a working prototype? Can it realistically be developed, deployed, and scaled?

• 5 – Excellent: Fully functional prototype; clear and realistic path to scale with strong technical foundation.

• 4 – Good: Partially working prototype; clear feasibility with some scaling potential.

• 3 – Satisfactory: Basic or conceptual demo; feasibility uncertain but plausible.

• 2 – Weak: Prototype incomplete; major technical or scalability challenges unresolved.

• 1 – Poor: No working prototype or unrealistic concept.

4. Ethics, Security & Inclusion

Does the solution adhere to principles of ethics, transparency, data privacy, and accessibility? Does it empower diverse users? Was the team collaborative during the event?

• 5 – Excellent: Strong ethical framework; robust security; fully inclusive and privacy-conscious by design. Very collaborative team

• 4 – Good: Good ethical consideration; security and inclusion addressed with minor gaps.

• 3 – Satisfactory: Some ethical or security measures in place; limited inclusion considerations.

• 2 – Weak: Ethics or security mostly overlooked; inclusion minimal.

• 1 – Poor: No consideration for ethics, privacy, or inclusion.

5. Presentation & Communication

How effectively is the project communicated in the online format?

• 5 – Excellent: Clear, concise, engaging; strong visuals and storytelling; easy for both technical and non-technical judges to understand.

• 4 – Good: Well-presented; minor areas for improvement in clarity or engagement.

• 3 – Satisfactory: Adequate presentation; key points covered but lacks polish or engagement.

• 2 – Weak: Unclear or confusing presentation; missing essential details.

• 1 – Poor: Disorganized or incomplete; fails to communicate the project effectively.

Tie breakers

In case of a tie for one of the first three spots, the judges will reconvene to vote for the eventual winner. This will be done in the following phases:

Phase 1: Reconsider score: Each judge will be asked to reconsider their score for each of the tied teams.

Phase 2: Vote between teams: If the teams are still tied after Phase 1, the judges will vote between each tied team and pick the eventual winners.

Timetable

Below is a timetable focused on Judges participation (Sunday 14/9, 14:00 – 19:00)

Sunday 14 September

• 14:00 – Judges checkin

• 14:30 – 17:30 Final pitches (with breaks)

• 17:30 – 18:00 Judge deliberation

• 18:00 – 19:00 Day 3 recap, awards, closing ceremony, par-tay with food and drinks!