> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.fundwork.app/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# How to Review Bounty Submissions and Select Winners

> How to evaluate Bounty submissions against your judging criteria, compare entries, and choose one or more winners to award USDC on Base.

When your Bounty deadline passes (or earlier, if you're ready), it's time to review what was submitted. Your job as a client is to evaluate each submission against the judging criteria you set when you posted the Bounty — and then select the winner or winners who earned the award.

<Steps>
  <Step title="Open your Bounty and navigate to Submissions">
    Go to your posted Bounty and open the **Submissions** tab. You'll see all entries that were submitted before the deadline, along with each submitter's name and Base identity.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Re-read your judging criteria">
    Before diving into submissions, re-read the judging criteria you wrote in your Bounty posting. These are the standards you committed to — use them consistently across every submission you review.

    **Examples of judging criteria from live Bounties:**

    * *Create 20-second launch video* — pacing, visual clarity, emotional tone, brand asset usage
    * *Find and document onboarding bugs* — severity, reproducibility, quality of documentation
    * *Rewrite onboarding copy* — clarity, tone alignment, reduction in friction for new users
    * *Design X header* — brand fit, visual hierarchy, originality

    <Tip>
      If you find yourself drawn to a submission for a reason not in your criteria, that's fine — but note it explicitly. Staying anchored to your published criteria keeps your review fair and your selection defensible.
    </Tip>
  </Step>

  <Step title="Review each submission individually">
    Open each submission and evaluate it on its own merits before comparing across entries. For each one, consider:

    * Does it meet the **requirements** you set? (Format, length, file type, eligibility)
    * How well does it address each of your **judging criteria**?
    * Is the work **complete** — or does it feel rushed or partial?
    * Does it demonstrate craft and care relative to the prize and scope?

    Take notes as you go. With more than a handful of submissions, it's easy to forget what made an early entry stand out.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Compare finalists and rank them">
    After reviewing all submissions, narrow to your shortlist and compare finalists directly. Ask yourself:

    * Which entry best satisfies the criteria you weighted most heavily?
    * If quality is close, which submission showed the most originality or effort?
    * If you're awarding multiple winners, does your selection reflect the full range of the criteria (e.g., for a bug bounty, are the three selected bugs meaningfully distinct)?

    <Note>
      If your Bounty allows multiple winners — like a bug-finding Bounty with 3 winner slots — you don't need to wait until you've reviewed all submissions to begin tracking strong entries. Just confirm your full shortlist before making final selections.
    </Note>
  </Step>

  <Step title="Select your winner(s)">
    When you're ready, select the winning submission or submissions. For a single-winner Bounty, you'll designate one entry. For a multi-winner Bounty, you'll select up to the number of winners you specified when posting.

    Selecting a winner triggers the approval and award process. See [Approving Work](/for-clients/approving-work) for what happens next.
  </Step>
</Steps>

<Tip>
  If you receive no qualifying submissions — or none that meet your standards — you are not obligated to award a prize to a submission that doesn't meet your stated criteria. Maintaining the integrity of your judging criteria protects the quality of work on the platform.
</Tip>