标签：#ha

My hackathon journey didn't start with winning. It started with losing. My first hackathon was BlueHacks 2025 . We spent almost all of our time building and very little time understanding the business side of our project. When it came time to pitch, we struggled to explain why our solution mattered. That experience taught me an important lesson: A great product means nothing if people don't understand its value. Next came GCash's invite-only hackathon . We didn't win, but I walked away with something more valuable than a trophy. I learned more about product thinking, working with data, and met someone named Neo, who would later become a key part of my hackathon journey. Then came the YSES Hackathon . Once again, we fell short. We believed we had built a strong solution, but we made the same mistake. We focused too much on the technology and too little on market validation, business models, and the value our product created. Everything changed during Based Space Batch 002 . It was my first international blockchain hackathon, and it completely changed how I approached building products. During the program, Sir Eli Becislao, then Country Lead of Base Philippines, emphasized the importance of storytelling, pitching, and business strategy. That was when I realized hackathons aren't just coding competitions. They're startup simulations. Our team eventually pivoted our idea and built NameThat , a Web3 platform on Base where users could earn rewards for creative names and ideas. Although we didn't win, we received the Most Pivoting Project Award , recognizing how much we improved our solution throughout the competition. That experience became a turning point. Next was the Philippine Blockchain Week ICP Hackathon . Simply being selected as one of the Top 50 teams in the Philippines already felt like an achievement. Then we were invited to present FarmChain on the Philippine Blockchain Week stage. When the results came out, we finished Top 6 out of 50 teams . To some, sixth p

Every open-source CVE backlog has that one line item you keep sliding into next quarter. The library is a couple of majors behind, the upgrade breaks four services, and the fix upstream ships against a version you cannot ride to. So you file the ticket again. (Everyone's doing great, thanks for asking.) On June 30, Aikido Security said it had acquired Root, whose whole pitch is to make that ticket go away by another route: patch the vulnerability directly into the version already resolved by your build, and skip the upgrade entirely. Per The New Stack, the deal is worth $70 million, and Root's patching technology gets folded into a new Aikido product. Let me phrase what has just moved as plainly as I can. A vendor now edits open-source packages on your behalf and hands you back a version string upstream never shipped. If that sentence made you flinch, hold the flinch. It is doing useful work. The problem this is actually solving The dirty secret of dependency remediation is that a lot of "known" CVEs sit unfixed because remediating them means a version bump that carries breaking changes. You do not get a security patch for the 2.x line, you get a "fixed in 4.0" release note and a laugh track. Backporting the fix is the right operational move: keep the API surface, change only the vulnerable bytes. Linux distributions have done exactly this for decades. The reason your app team is not doing it too is that nobody has the muscle to maintain a patched fork of every transitive dependency in a lockfile. If Aikido now makes that muscle available to the average CI/CD owner, teams get a lever they simply did not have. That is the honest upside. Own it. Who is signing what, exactly Here is the part I care about, which is trust. When your build resolves a package by name and version, you rely on a chain: the registry answers, the digest matches what upstream published, the SBOM you generate downstream still refers back to that same identity. A backported build breaks that chai