Currently, projects are only judged by the official judges and the hackathon partners, with feedback limited to "yes" or "no." No systematic way allows hackers to get comprehensive feedback from the community or other hackers. That's why we aim to create a ranked list of projects,
Also, there is a low incentive for the hackathon members and the community to check the projects and get familiar with them. That's why we defined a Curator Reward for the top curators (as defined above) of the list to incentivize them to learn more about the projects.
Once the official hackathon concludes, the progress of the hackers is no longer tracked; worsened by a lack of incentive to continue, they fail to reach a stage whereby they can apply for grants and VC funding. We can maintain this community voting in cycles (e.g., every month for 6 months) after the hackathon to help the projects progress and possibly earn more prizes.
The contract is simple and just stores data. The ratings given by the hackathon participants are encrypted by the Threshold Access Control until the voting ends, and then the frontends can get the data and interpret it however they like. We relied on ETHGlobal's POAPs for verifying hackers