Sarpoy vs Bounty Platforms (Gitcoin, Immunefi, HackerOne)
Centralised custody and manual payout
Traditional bounty platforms hold custody of prize funds and process payouts manually. They handle KYC, taxes, and dispute resolution for you, which is sometimes what you want. But the custody model is the wrong fit for the kind of high-frequency, pseudonymous, globally distributed puzzle work Sarpoy is built for.
Choose Bounty Platforms (Gitcoin, Immunefi, HackerOne)
Pick a traditional platform when the participant pool needs KYC, the prize must be paid in fiat to a registered entity, and you're willing to trade payout speed for legal cover.
Choose Sarpoy
Pick Sarpoy when the participants are crypto-comfortable, the payout speed matters, and the audit trail belongs on a public chain rather than in the operator's database.
Feature-by-feature
| Feature | Sarpoy | Bounty Platforms (Gitcoin, Immunefi, HackerOne) |
|---|---|---|
| Custody | Solana program (PDA) | Platform-held escrow account |
| Payout speed | One transaction, sub-second | Days to weeks (KYC, banking) |
| Dispute model | Constrained by program code | Operator-mediated, ad hoc |
| KYC required | No | Usually yes for large payouts |
| Take rate | 0% platform fee | 5-20% depending on platform |
| Real-time price discovery | Rising-cost curve | Static bounty value |
Technical notes
Bounty platforms have to maintain a ledger; Sarpoy has the chain to do that for it.
On-chain settlement removes the operator from the critical path of every payout. That is the entire pitch.
Traditional platforms are not going away — but they are not the right fit for adversarial AI work that is global, pseudonymous, and high-frequency.