Terra Classic Security Audit Proposal Fails Over $70,800 Upfront Payment Dispute
A proposal to fund a Terra Classic security audit by SolidProof and fixes by OrbitLabs has failed, but the outcome does not necessarily mean the LUNC community is against conducting a security audit.
The main issue appears to be how the audit would be funded.
SolidProof requested approximately $70,800 in full upfront payment, while Terra Classic has previously adopted a Pay Per Job payment model for development work. This difference in payment structure became a key point of concern surrounding the proposal.
Terra Classic Audit Proposal Fails
The proposal was intended to fund a security audit by SolidProof, with OrbitLabs responsible for addressing identified issues and implementing necessary fixes.
However, the proposal failed to gain approval under Terra Classic governance.
The disagreement centers largely on the payment terms rather than the underlying need for a security audit.
For a blockchain network such as Terra Classic, security audits can help identify vulnerabilities before they become larger technical or financial risks. However, funding such work through community controlled funds also requires the payment structure to follow established governance principles.
$70,800 Upfront Payment Becomes Key Issue
The major concern was SolidProof’s request for approximately $70,800 to be paid upfront.
Terra Classic has previously approved a Pay Per Job model, which is designed to connect Community Pool spending with completed development work.
Under this approach, payments are generally tied to specific work being completed rather than providing the entire amount before the work begins.
This created a significant difference between the proposed SolidProof arrangement and the payment structure used for other development work.
Pay Per Job Model Raises Governance Questions
The Pay Per Job model was introduced to provide greater accountability when Community Pool funds are used for development.
The basic principle is straightforward: community funds should be connected to clearly defined work and deliverables.
This approach can provide governance participants with a clearer way to evaluate whether funded work has actually been completed before payments are released.
The SolidProof proposal therefore raised a broader question for the Terra Classic community.
Should an external security provider receiving Community Pool funding operate under different payment conditions from developers working under the Pay Per Job model?
In this case, SolidProof would receive its payment upfront, while the OrbitLabs portion of the work follows a payment structure based on completed work.
The Audit and the Payment Structure Are Separate Issues
The failure of the proposal should not necessarily be interpreted as opposition to a Terra Classic security audit.
The two issues are separate.
The first question is whether Terra Classic should conduct an external security audit.
The second question is how that audit should be funded and what payment conditions should apply.
The failed proposal primarily highlights the second issue.
If the community continues to support the need for an audit, a future proposal could potentially address the concerns surrounding payment terms while maintaining the security objective.
What Happens Next for Terra Classic?
The outcome leaves the community with a potential path to revisit the audit under a different funding structure.
A revised proposal could focus on establishing payment conditions that are compatible with Terra Classic governance expectations while clearly defining the audit scope, deliverables and responsibilities of SolidProof and OrbitLabs.
For LUNC governance, the debate demonstrates the importance of balancing security requirements, contractor payment practices and responsible use of Community Pool funds.
The key question is therefore not simply whether Terra Classic wants to be audited.
It is whether the audit can be structured in a way that meets the community’s security needs while also following its established funding principles.
