The story
A Makeathon and Hackathon in one programme
The team designed two complementary routes into Intersect.
The Hackathon addressed technical solutions and applications, while the Makeathon introduced creative and design challenges open to people without advanced blockchain programming skills.
The final programme included two principal coding tracks, two main no-code tracks and bonus activities. Themes covered interoperability, security, games and digital media, wallet and hardware design, digital identity and application experiences.
One of the bonus challenges invited participants to design a Lionscraft-branded hardware wallet.
The format connected the technical network with a broader group of creators, while keeping the competition deliverables and evaluation requirements specific.
Coordinating the partner and technical programme
Delivery involved more than preparing challenge descriptions. Lionscraft worked across event structure, sponsors and partner involvement, judging arrangements, participant guidance, communications and workshop coordination.
The competition was hosted through DoraHacks, giving entrants a common project-submission platform.
Supporting workshops and seminars introduced blockchain technology and development concepts relevant to the challenges. Technical partners contributed specialist knowledge and tooling, while the organising team coordinated calendars, judging, results and the reward programme.
Submissions, judging and awards
The final stc Bahrain event report reported:
| Recorded event outcome | Organiser-reported figure |
|---|---|
| Registered participants | 114 |
| Submitted projects | 64 |
| Winning entries | 13 |
| Judges | 16 |
| Countries represented by judges | 15 |
The reported prize pool was valued at more than US$100,000, including non-cash components.
The programme ended with a documented set of submissions and winners, rather than only a promotional launch or an attendance announcement.
The work after judging
The historical delivery record also covers prize administration, participant follow-ups and work with winners after the event. Cash prize payouts and physical reward fulfilment followed different processes and timelines.
This matters as a delivery detail: the team was responsible for real operational coordination before and after the public closing event, not just stage management.
The available source record does not demonstrate that all 64 submitted projects subsequently entered production. That would require separate project-level follow-up rather than treating a hackathon submission as an adopted application.