One of the 2026 medals might go to the author of this paper:

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Untitled_Item/14776146.

It seems serious.It's not serious.

Not claiming the paper is completely correct, but i can't seem to find anything gravely wrong with it. Maybe you could explain what the flaw is ?

If I spent the couple of hours it would take to find the flaw in every amateur mathematician's attempt at the RH, then I would not have time to do real work. So before it's worth that investment of time, there has to be evidence of genuine new ideas and an awareness of the massive literature on the subject. A glance at the introduction shows that this paper fails both of those tests.

Well, i don't think anyone who has passed through a first course in analytic number theory would need two hours to go over this 3-page proof (in one hour, i thoroughly read the paper twice yet i'm grad student in AG). But of course, one is perfectly justified by not wanting to potentially waste their time rading a 3-page proposed solution of the RH from an unknown author.

However, i and my two fellow grad students havethoroughly read this paper several times and we can factually tell you that this proof is very serious.