Hackathon Projects Outcome

I would like to know others’ thoughts on the projects presented and maybe an outstanding project that they thought was their choice.

For me there was nothing that I felt worth investing ICP money on.

I believe the hackathons by all coins was more about jump starting investment back into the Total market.

I would have thought that the most important subject at the moment for the Web is the amount of Businesses and Personal individuals being ripped-off and this would play into the hands of these coins that are more secure and that money would be better spent on Marketing Websites that take advantage of these technologies to ensure the safety of being on the Web.

At the moment the detail is too technical and needs to be dumb down for users and visual.

We could see online businesses and individuals decline on the Internet and start using local goods and services. We Are seeing economies around the world who invest and buy goods and services from other countries protracting now and the idea of a dominant Business model returning to the local model.

Burning Venture Capital on ordinary submissions could be better spent being more transparent, pointing out the problems to come and being seen as a leader, as a video I saw recently showing Dominic Williams being interviewed by Vitalk in which Dominic showed his dominance of the other 2 people, thanks @kusiyuo

I think users are sick and tired of the scams and the many new unknown brands providing the same old services and just creating more trustless services that like myself are going back to the local shopping centres to spend my money getting to touch and feel goods and I don’t care about paying more.


As a newbie, I was astonished to see those early videos of Dominic. This guy is a legend.
Maybe Dominic is the real Satoshi Nakamoto.


I thought that there were certain projects with mindblowing implications. For example, spinner.cash would essentially enable private btc transactions with no bridging.


I like Kinic, and how it complements Papyrs.

Both are rudimentary, but a nascent ecosystem is still an ecosystem.


Yeah, that project is on another level. Really cool to see such a “simple” and functional use of the IC to leverage the power of other blockchains/cryptos.

I agree with this point whole-heartidely:

would have thought that the most important subject at the moment for the Web is the amount of Businesses and Personal individuals being ripped-off

What good is any blockchain/distributed ledger if it cannot defeat the fraud that goes on in its own name, given that it is supposed to be an instrument providing a virtually immutable ledger for the sake of authentic accreditation?

That being said, there were several projects that demonstrated attention to this. The Crowdfund NFT project has an open source version of their escrow canister; the podcast platform by definition handles this and podcasting is a serious market waiting for disruption; there were other projects–sometimes I’m bad with names–like the one in defi tokenizing monetiztion of revenue streams that all speak to the problem of defeating fraud done in the name of crypto.

There’s still a long way to go, but many of these projects show real commitment to making it happen, if not being the necessary catalyst and step in that direction. These are ideal use cases of a more general possibility, which is what you speak of next… the preference for local markets. Local markets can’t even exist when market forces dominate their markets (“free market only if you already own it”, Big Tech self preference, etc). With the adoption of DLT tech to empower users, it will make local markets more viable because in addition to connecting all the various markets for the benefit of the free circulation of value, it provides a means of developing standards any “user agent” can participate and contribute to in a way simply not possible in existing market structures. The key is that it’s a numbers game, it’ll take a critical mass of “the decentralized network effect” to really take off.

That being said, a few really good examples that can 'puncture the equilibrium" of the current market stasis will likely be a necessary gateway to more widespread adoption. As I said, the podcast project could likely do just that.

All that being said, it is entirely true it’s all about usability. Steve Jobs proved this. Hopefully these projects will attract more attention that will bring quality front-end mobile developers to really get this stuff off the ground, as mobile first is the way the world personally computes.

“At the moment the detail is too technical and needs to be dumb down for users and visual.”

This is a kind of chicken-egg scenario: advocacy can only go so far as there is something tangible the advocate can point to and say “don’t take my word for it, try it for yourself”. There were already examples prior to the hackathon of this, but it seems like only know the real power of the IC is being recognized, what it can do for all chains, not just itself… this is not a trivial distinction. Of course, more advocacy and awareness would certainly help the IC gain attention it deserves… maybe this could be a specific Community Awards track?

There were a lot of projects worthy of investment, I’m not sure you are saying you don’t think they are because they didn’t make more of a point of providing an on-ramp for potential users? That’s not a problem specific to the IC, that’s a blockchain challenge. As I said, to advocate for something–ie that on-ramping/on-boarding adoption–you need something tangible to show because, as necessary as words are, they can only go so far particularly when people have a fairly bad taste in their mouth when it comes to crypto.

This is why I would argue to consider not worrying about your dapp being staked on crypto, most people probably won’t care about that. What they will care about is the ease of use they have in paying bills and accepting payments in their existing currencies (until that critical mass is reached anyways), even if the underlying data structures and algorithms use crypto to stabilize their tokenized assets (for instance). This is not necessarily true for the domain of blockchain space, but anything beyond that is very much true.

Finally! the heart of what will be possible will likely be demonstrated where socialfi meets defi in the tokenized metaverse, but we’re still years away from the kind of technology needed for the metaverse in its current form to be widely adopted. That doesn’t mean the current projects like Cubetopia (and other finalists) aren’t critical and don’t represent just the kind of “relatable” accessibility you are speaking of–that’s exactly what games are all about, being a part, having some control in how you play, discovering what challenges you can overcome. I’d urge to consider that if you really want to push for the kind of change you’re saying is necessary (and is!) you focus it on what will help the games as far as blockchain and metaverse are related, in all its forms.

1 Like

I feel I am more of a conservative and a short search on: I like Kinic, and how it complements Papyrs. I was not able to find these projects and therefore unable to comment.

I would have liked a link.

What I like about the IC is that it exists and not just a proposal and is something that is useful and overcomes the problems and concerns of users that I mentioned. NFTs sound like a great idea but the hype and claims around it makes me turn away.

When I talk to people about crypto to the average Joe the first words that come out are: that’s just a scam and many unhealthy descriptions but is believed by the majority.

I am interested in tech that changes the way we do things, computers, internet, mobile. These tech’s changed the world and while games I sure have advanced tech I would rather do something physical and most of my friends have the things I mention but none of them play games or have discussions about them.

There are many proposals but it is their actions that are more important to me and when they have something to show, use and break then I will listen.

Why are there not more challenging, top tech companies built on the old web, that’s where the traffic is what IC needs, and then you are right no one would care about the underlying tech as long as it works and then the user experience should be far better and where users want to be through interaction.

Also you are right that we should not dumb down but raise the understanding but there are claims that can be made about crypto that can be marketed to the crowds about the experience they are reading and victims of that we can dumb down to explain these problems have been removed and traceable.

Thank you for your comments. They have given me a different view.


It feels something like the 1995 Webcrawler, which transformed the internet. Papyrs isn’t anything amazing on its own, but the fact that that two are integrated proves that information is being archived and is searchable on a metalayer.

Whether or not you think that’s a big deal, it seems to me a very necessary step.


I sign on and had a look, but it seams basic and with standard features which also didn’t have some features I would expect today.

Today when I wanted to talk to someone who has been in the UK for a week and is now in Sweden and I want to contact them why can’t I have the feature of knowing what day and time they have so I am not calling at the wrong time and messages and images that I might have sent from my mobile.

News items and weather for their location.

Why not a calendar than keeps all my appointments and updates me in a time frame and featured on my dashboard.

Nothing really new for me, sorry.

I love bargains ; especially in tech. How about this: you can buy nearly 4x cycles on sonic (https://app.sonic.ooo) currently exchanging WICP than by simply minting cycles through ICP?

Of course if you are not a developer, why should you care about cycles? The fact that this discrepancy exists today in XTC->WICP(edit) today should at least give you some clue to future. Now think about a more advanced AMM like Enoki with limit orders.

The UX can definitely use a lot of improvement; definitely. But it is the first movers that sometimes have distinct advantages.

1 Like

I watched this from @ikdefons thanks for putting this up
Minute 39: https://twitter.com/klever_io/status/1514604508424425472?s=20&t=CVVWV6CR3OiaTadZd7OD9w

I like quality bargains but I couldn’t find your suggested projects, please add a link.

1 Like

Dominic is a legend…

The thing is is the literally the most difficult about mass adoption of blockchain/DLT technology is the fact it is difficult to take seriously that any technology could actually redefine the way collective and personal ownership is regarded.

That’s why when people see crypto scams and go “wtf is this supposed to be serious technology?” what they are not connecting is the fact of course you’d expect a technology that is capable of rewriting the very terms of any market agreements, to literally rewrite the way economics can work, to be equally capable of being used to exploit people for profit.

It is kind of similar to how a vaccine, if it wasn’t understand how it works, might be rejected because initially it’ll likely make you ill before it immunizes you. A better example would likely be why would ever want to ever think atomic energy could be useful when it’s so demonstratively been used as a tool of mass destruction?

Unlike fusion, however, this technology can be by definition open source and extensible to whomever has access to develop and codevelop it. This is why imho crypto is the the most interesting–the concept of the usability of decentralization–is that whether it works or not will be a function of how we all collectively can use it, not instead as a result of one person, agency or narrative dictating the terms of how everyone should use it.

This is why I keep encouraging other developers to really take the idea of empowering their users to heart, to instead of trying to quantify the userbase in terms of market share, consider that the real way to make this technology take off is to presume no one but those who genuinely consent to participate and contribute should be in control of how the value they produce is exchanged: ie opt-in to custodial delegation, not by default having to opt-out of it.


To understand mankind it helps to ponder the past and then you see people modifie their behaviors but don’t change.

History: Dot-com bubble - Wikipedia

1 Like

While it can be open source , it does not have to be. The ZKP(zero knowledge proof) is testament to this. One could have a method to prove the reimann hypothesis; but thanks to ZKP; one does not have to disclose the method used to prove it. Only a SNARK to prove that one has a method to prove it. Further for every Proof, there exists a ZKP.

1 Like

I can see that some people are drawn to an object from their love of maths or interests but what are the goals of the project, is my interest. ZPK as I read it tries to solve access to the right people without sharing personal information but they all involve time and more clicks.

Humans are lazy and take the shortest route to achieve their goals and the reason why most authentication fails.

I joined a server group recently and the conversation seems to always revolve around the behaviour of members, joiners, passwords and their habits of security. While we talk about and spend many billions on security, people practice bad habits and until we have face, finger and blood samples I don’t see this changing.

I like the ideas and goals around ICP but there are many points I don’t like but it is better than many projects, which I am sure seem great and plausible to the creators but doesn’t make much sense to me.

Thank Gödel for that.

Are you saying it is theoretically possible beyond reasonable doubt to prove code that is not open source does what someone claims it does? I’m not sure a SNARK could even be sufficient, though my paranoid skepticism is probably unrealistic. Still, if it’s not open source then by definition you are taking someone else’s word for it that it does what it says it’ll do, ie the trustless nature of decentralization is obviated, SNARK or not (how would you differentiate between a good enough bluff?)

Anyways that’s why I mentioned, by definition can be… consider the redefinition of ownership becomes one not built on exclusivity but on shared capability, one in which shared virtual immutability becomes a means by which, at least financially speaking, (nearly) perfectly competitive markets are the norm, not the exception.

This is the whole point of ZKP. You don’t need to take someone else’s word for it that it does what it says it’ll do. The ZKP ensures that no knowledge escapes from the prover to verifer in verifying. The verifier is no wiser after verifying.

I would argue otherwise. ZKP accentuates the trustless nature of decentralization. If you solve the Reinmann Hypothesis (one of the Millinnium Prize Problems ; literally worth a million dollars), the ZKP would convince me that you have the proof beyond a reasonable doubt without you having to show me the proof. Isnt that the very essence of being trustless?

1 Like

I wasn’t denying the validity of ZKP’s. In fact, I like them very much. What a great way to frustrate people who think they know everything by showing them proof of something they can’t originally prove themselves?

My point was if it’s not open source, you simply have no way to verify the fact if it is a zero knowledge proof proving the fact or some arbitrary code fraudulently telling you it is credible. If you don’t believe me, just wait until the ZKP scams start happening (“verified by ZKP, you can’t trust us! we’re not stealing your money! Our SNARK prove it!”), you’ll see exactly what I mean.