Researchers
HM awards
The HM pool is reserved for valid medium and high findings. Payouts are based on weighted shares across the contest, not flat fixed amounts per report.
PayoutsResearchers and judges
How Zerantiq pays researchers and judges.
Researcher rewards and judge compensation are separated on purpose. Researchers earn from HM and QA pools. Judges earn from a dedicated judge pool. The rules below reflect the current payout logic used by the platform.
Researchers earn from HM + QA poolsJudges earn from a separate judge poolDuplicate findings share HM weightInvalid submissions are not paid
PoolsThree payout paths
Three pools. Two audiences.
Researchers can earn from HM and QA pools. Judges earn from a separate judge pool. Keeping them separate makes the payout model easier to explain and easier to audit.
Researchers
QA awards
The QA pool is split equally across all valid submissions. It rewards clear writeups, reproducibility, and overall reporting quality.
Judges
Judge awards
The judge pool is distributed according to judging workload. That keeps review compensation separate from the researcher prize pool.
ResearchersHM and QA payouts
Researcher payouts come from two separate places.
Researchers do not rely on one undifferentiated bucket. Severity-based rewards and quality-based rewards are calculated differently and paid from different pools.
1. Become valid
Only valid submissions can participate in researcher payouts.
2. Enter HM if eligible
Valid medium and high findings enter the HM share calculation. Duplicates join the same finding group.
3. Share QA separately
Every valid submission also shares the QA pool equally, including valid duplicates.
JudgesWorkload-based payouts
Judge payouts follow review workload.
The judge pool is split proportionally by the number of judgements each judge made on valid submissions. That keeps judge compensation visible and separate from researcher rewards.
Sample split
14 total judgements on valid submissions.
If three judges contributed 8, 4, and 2 judgements, the judge pool would be split in the same 8:4:2 ratio.
Judge A57.1%
8 judgements
Judge B28.6%
4 judgements
Judge C14.3%
2 judgements
LogicExact rules
The current payout logic in one place.
The page below summarizes the actual payout rules used by the current pool-based distribution logic.
ResearchersHM awards
researcher_payout = hm_pool * (researcher_shares / total_hm_shares)Current share rule: researcher_shares = (severity_weight * 0.9^discovery_count) / discovery_count. In the current pool logic, medium uses weight 3 and high uses weight 10.
ResearchersQA awards
qa_payout = qa_pool / valid_submission_countThe QA pool is split equally across all valid submissions. A duplicate that remains valid still participates in QA.
JudgesJudge awards
judge_payout = judge_pool * (judge_judgements / total_judgements)The current logic counts each judge's judgements on valid submissions, then splits the judge pool proportionally.
FAQCommon payout questions
The payout rules are simpler when they are separated by role.
Do duplicate findings get a full HM payout?
No. Duplicate findings share the finding's HM weight instead of triggering a second full HM payout. Valid duplicates still participate in QA.
Do low severity findings receive HM payouts?
No. The current HM pool logic is reserved for valid medium and high findings. QA can still reward valid submissions separately.
How are judges paid?
Judges are paid from a dedicated judge pool based on their judgement count on valid submissions. Their compensation does not come out of researcher pools.
What happens to invalid submissions?
Invalid submissions do not participate in HM or QA payouts. Researcher payouts only apply to submissions marked valid.
NextNeed the client view too?
See how payouts and pricing fit together.
The payout page explains who gets paid. The pricing page explains what the client is charged.