Cycle 1 is officially in the books. 62 Mini Apps submitted, all of them scored by the Nimiq Community Council, and the results are final. 🥁 Drumroll please… 🥇 1st place: Nimiq Space by @Harley NSpace An open multiplayer world where wallet-signed players can see who is online right now, paint a persistent 500x500 collaborative floor, and build rooms that sync live for everyone in them. 🥈 2nd place: NimJump by @Emre Alt An arcade game built around a minimal client-authority architecture, where the server replays every run itself instead of trusting the score the client reports. 🥉 3rd place: NimQuest by @mystiquemide A learn-and-prove Mini App with server-graded quizzes, where a completion only counts once you sign a one-time message in Nimiq Pay. Congratulations to all three. Winners will be contacted directly to arrange payout. To everyone else who submitted, thank you. You shipped something real in four weeks and set the bar high for future cycles. Every app you built is yours under the MIT License, so keep going with it. 🗓️ Cycle 2 opens August 24. Same $17,000 USDT prize pool, four Sip & Ship calls, submissions close September 18 at 23:59 UTC. If your app did not place this time, you can refine it and submit it again. Full breakdown on all three winners: https://www.nimiq.com/blog/mini-apps-competition-cycle-1-winner-announcement

Hey all! 👋 Simple question: should the score be made public? Yes or no?

If you've ever run, judged, or entered a hackathon or competition, you've probably seen the same problems: scoring lives in spreadsheets, judges can influence each other, results get finalized with little context, and participants often get no useful feedback on where they actually stood. I built OpenScore to fix that. OpenScore is a self-hosted platform for running judged competitions end to end: define a detailed rubric, import submissions from GitHub, assign judges, score independently, generate useful feedback, publish leaderboards and result breakdowns, and keep a full audit trail of how the final outcome was reached. What makes it different: - Independent judging — judges don't see each other's scores while evaluating. - Detailed rubric scoring — score individual sub-metrics, not just broad categories. - Useful feedback — comments, quick tags, and optional generated summaries. - Locked means locked — changes after finalization require a reason and are audited. - Configurable transparency — choose exactly what participants and the public can see. - GitHub snapshots — lock judging to the exact commit that was reviewed. - Verifiable results — assessment sets can be Merkle-rooted and committed to Nimiq. - Full audit history — overrides, role changes, snapshot changes, corrections, and publishing actions are traceable. The goal is also to make competitions more useful for builders. If you didn't win, you should still be able to understand where you lost points, what judges valued, and whether improving the same idea for another round actually makes sense. 🔗 Live demo: https://openscore.nimiqminiapps.com/c/miniappscycle1 💻 Source: https://github.com/NimMiniApps/OpenScore Would love feedback from anyone who's run or participated in hackathons, grant rounds, bounty programs, or other judged competitions.

The Nimiq Community Council has spoken. The winners are in. 👀 $17,000 in prizes..... Announcement Friday Aug 14. Who's it going to be?👇

62 builders submitted a Mini App in Cycle 1 and we're genuinely curious how everyone found their way here. Vote below and let us know. If your answer is Other, drop it in the comments. We'd love to hear it! 👇