When one component of the system has infinite power over the other (moderation over quantitative metrics here), you can't call that a mixture IMO.
I would suggest these three things:
(1) separate the concept of "experts" and "organizers/developers". When I hear "experts" I assume "independent experts".
(2) change deceiving language on the landing page. Quoting: "All you need to do is convince other participants that your project is worth doing." and "Every week other participants will give you feedback and points. The more progress you make, the higher your score will be." No mention of experts, yet alone organizers at all.
(3) Make the points transparent. That includes breaking down voting vs experts vs whatever and disclosing the details of the scoring and matchmaking systems. Doesn't have to be exact spec/formula obviously, but general details.
I would suggest these three things: (1) separate the concept of "experts" and "organizers/developers". When I hear "experts" I assume "independent experts". (2) change deceiving language on the landing page. Quoting: "All you need to do is convince other participants that your project is worth doing." and "Every week other participants will give you feedback and points. The more progress you make, the higher your score will be." No mention of experts, yet alone organizers at all. (3) Make the points transparent. That includes breaking down voting vs experts vs whatever and disclosing the details of the scoring and matchmaking systems. Doesn't have to be exact spec/formula obviously, but general details.