There is a big difference between 4-th and 10-th place so I would recommend to assign the different rewards for every place. For example,
4th place … 35,000 TONs
5th place … 30,000 TONs
6th place … 25,000 TONs
7th place … 20,000 TONs
8th place … 15,000 TONs
9th place … 10,000 TONs
10th place … 5,000 TONs
I would replace the words “test cluster” with the “test network” because the meaning of the “cluster” is overloaded: load balancing cluster, fail tolerance cluster. I don’t think we are talking about such things here.
Ok. I agree with this approach to rewards for test cases crowdsourcing
Got it. Agree with this as well
Based on today discussion on DevEx meetup call the following additional evaluation criteria were proposed:
| ● | Each submission should be rated by jurors based on its: |
|---|---|
| ○ | Innovativeness |
| ○ | Complexity |
| ○ | Suitability for real use |
2 Likes
Contest Prolongation Proposal: Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification Use Cases
It is proposed to amend the following parameters to the following contest: 0:e6b65075478e7d412fdb0870452f30dfa8bf51272e28a3167abc5c5df6fd051d
Submission period: May 7, 2021 00:01 UTC - July 15, 2021 at 23:59 UTC
Voting period: 20 days
1 Like
Expand the Jury Members List Proposal
Contest to change: #18 Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification Use Cases
Contest address: 0:48a1dcbdd84676492b86532f0e3d1efef46afb5b895508b46fbaa95773fe9818
Proposed changes: Adding Formal Verification Subgov team to the Jury members of contest
Following the decision taken at DevEx Subgov Weekly Zoom,
in addition to the regular DevEx Subgov Jury Members,
it is proposed to add the following Formal Verification Subgov Initial Members to the contest jury list:
- Sergey EGOROV @sergeyegorovspb 67dd20b9a760ae538a7f24ebfbaaf09a7075b4617a7ad09c19503c2551f57d81 0:d0e20274758acb651930c5b9b7dfda330583624f0e4d0b8ffc63bc287c69c5e3
- Andrey LYASHIN @andruiman cec27f6cfdadadc5da135875d5988019bd8a760fe6e16fe1f49459cf6d18f9e7 0:0a98551dd36a5dc65f4510362f3528dd195862a054aa70fcdd7ca8925a54ece4
- Fabrice LE FESSANT @fabrice_dune 4aca372ed9695ab42cc8ba7fd7f56d11c2401611c2d513bbc28beb5c7f4363a1 0:24a44423bc7edc2598b50ae87267bd06bc53455328e837dae32b9b7592716de7
- Thomas SIBUT-PINOTE @ThomasSibutPinote 50384ec36bee19914526f436a0adf57d0c35389934b5aaca15db5b5e89f42aa0 0:95d0f87463175d9cfeb5fd62df6699d56de1fdecb5d823cae21de84aaba3ed12
- Evgeniy Shishkin @unboxedtype 6ff61c1a7bb09795f7b5d5514dd710efb72e9557654d362ef208fde545ba7a33 0:ef3813861e4717bc5b34bbdc13b3498ad2b0198100f87b9fa28cd080854c4ad8
1 Like
Contest Amendment Proposal: Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification Use Cases
It is proposed to amend the following parameters to the following contest: 0:aae666d58a625b5bfe674a8163e68c869e5211fed4b1ea002b8ef3e49686c20e
Special Participants Rewards
An amount equal to 10000 TON will be allocated to following participants according to their exceptional commitment to the contest infrastructure:
- @noam_y (Profile - Noam - Free TON) 0:6374643d8d4b1aef831d6e1a4fdc719909165b1b232a20ad25878ad400aeb0bb
2 Likes
As it was agreed on last DevEx meetup:
Reward Proposal: For exceptional contribution into Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification debugging
Special Participants Rewards
An amount equal to 10 000 TON will be allocated to following participants according to their exceptional commitment to the Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification contest use cases infrastructure:
- @noam_y (Profile - Noam - Free TON) 0:6374643d8d4b1aef831d6e1a4fdc719909165b1b232a20ad25878ad400aeb0bb
2 Likes
As it was agreed on last DevEx meetup:
Reward Proposal: For exceptional contribution into Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification debugging:
- Pull requests · NilFoundation/crypto3-blueprint · GitHub
- Pull requests · NilFoundation/ton-proof-verification-contest · GitHub
- fix namespace of is_extended_field by NoamDev · Pull Request #15 · NilFoundation/crypto3-zk · GitHub
- checkout dictionary.rs from tonlabs@latest by NoamDev · Pull Request #3 · NilFoundation/rust-tvm · GitHub
- He also found the cause for why proving key serialzation didn’t work: Telegram
- And reported some problems with knapsack component.
Special Participants Rewards
An amount equal to 10 000 TON will be allocated to following participants according to their exceptional commitment to the Groth16 zkSNARK Proof Verification contest use cases infrastructure:
- @noam_y (Profile - Noam - Free TON) 0:6374643d8d4b1aef831d6e1a4fdc719909165b1b232a20ad25878ad400aeb0bb
The payment will be made together with the awarding of the winners of the contest.
1 Like
Totally agree, @Noam did an outstanding job and help a lot to clarify details of blueprint usage in our telegram group conversations! 
Hi everyone,
We at OcamlPro are excited to announce that we are about to add our submission to the contest. Of course, this means that we waive participation in the jury.
Stay tuned!
@ThomasSibutPinote and @fabrice_dune
1 Like
So, presenting Anonymous Vote Use Case submission!
2 Likes
Submission #4 here. I didn’t find any instructions how to get tokens on nil network so I’ve been testing locally. Cheers.
My address is 0:f582c60ead509e1d213d0924bc25068df845e7e6bc1d51c29fb2d1106af3de24
repo
2 Likes
Aside from all the things, that I’ve done:
My snark still not compiling.
Sad, but I can’t go through the linker to submit my submission.
It was nice to hack with you, guys.
Good luck to all participants.
@tomsib @Noam @idealatom @cnot54 let me ask you a favor. This was not an easy contest with lot of debugging and technical problems. As you see @skywinder wrote that he wasn’t able to upload his submission in time. Do you think it could be possible to postpone the deadline? It is definitely beneficial for community to get more solutions, but it could harm your position due to increased competition.
2 Likes
Though I was not asked, I will give my opinion 
If you want him to be able to participate without being unfair with other contestants, a solution could be to extend the deadline, but only to contest for the 5-10th positions. I don’t see why people would complain about such a solution…
5 Likes
I don’t mind to extend the contest to give a chance for participants who didn’t have enough time, but it would be unfair if their proposals could harm our positions. I felt asleep at 5 am but submitted my proposal in time 
, so I agree with @lefessan
Well, for sure, there were several unexpected problems in the end (on server-side and local compiling errors as well).
And I thought to propose the same as @lefessan:
- To extend contests for one week (I think it would be enough to fix all the issues)
- To not make unfair competition: allow new participants to compete only for a 2nd tier.
That means all who submit on time (@tomsib @Noam @idealatom @cnot54) should be above the rest competitors.
Then we will not make unfair competition and allow the people who also have issues to finish this contest. (I know there were at least two persons, who failed to submit for some reason)
3 Likes