Scoring System
How competition points are calculated and prize pots are distributed. Cantina competitions use a transparent, points-based scoring model to reward high-impact, high-quality submissions - encouraging depth, originality, and clarity.Prize Pot Distribution
All eligible participants who score points share in a public prize pot.- High severity finding: 10 points
- Medium severity finding: 3 points
- Low severity findings: May be eligible for a separate prize pool, if specified.
Duplicate Submission Scaling
When multiple researchers submit the same bug, each person’s score is scaled down based on the total number of duplicates: Wheren is the number of duplicate submissions.
- 2 duplicates: each receives 4.5 points for a high severity finding
- 3 duplicates: each receives 2.7 points for a high severity finding
Submission Timing
Submissions are scored equally regardless of when they’re submitted during the competition. However, early, well-written reports are encouraged to allow teams to provide feedback and begin implementing fixes.Withdrawing Findings
You can withdraw a submission at any time using the “withdraw finding” option in the finding menu.Low-Severity, Informational, and Gas Findings
Some competitions include a dedicated prize pool for these types of findings. These awards are based solely on quality, not quantity - and exceptional writeups in this category (or for high/medium findings) may be recognized here as well.Escalation Process
Appeal a judging decision with clarity and consequence. Once the initial judging phase is complete, researchers have the opportunity to appeal a decision they believe was misjudged - by initiating an escalation.Who Can Escalate
- Only the original submitter of a finding can initiate an escalation.
- Escalations must include additional context or justification for why the severity should be reconsidered.
Penalty for Invalid Escalations
- Invalid escalations will result in a $100 penalty, deducted from any future competition earnings.
- This system is in place to prevent unnecessary or speculative appeals.
Judging Authority
- All escalations are reviewed by Cantina.
- Cantina’s decision is final.
Private Comments
- You can add private comments to any finding - visible only to judges.
- These are useful both during initial judging and if you escalate.
- If commenting on others’ findings, stay professional: keep your notes objective and specific.
Judge Responsibilities
During the judging phase, judges are responsible for handling different operations for findings. These are extended and not limited to managing thorough duplication of all raised issues, which helps in identifying and filtering out obvious low or invalid concerns. They are tasked with evaluating issues based on established rules and may seek feedback from sponsors when necessary to make informed judgments. Furthermore, judges facilitate a system of escalation, allowing researchers to present additional information for reevaluation of their issues. In such scenarios, judges provide valuable feedback, incorporating the sponsor’s perspective if needed. Ultimately, while judges contribute significantly to the reassessment process, the final decision often resides with the Cantina internal team, ensuring that all judgments are well-considered and equitable.Key Responsibilities
- Evaluate findings based on established severity criteria
- Handle duplication by grouping related findings
- Collaborate with sponsors for clarification when needed
- Process escalations and provide feedback
- Maintain consistency across all submissions