SolidProof Said LUNC Was Not a Trustworthy Client, Demanded 100% Upfront, Now Accepts 50%

Terra Classic’s proposed SolidProof security audit has hit a major roadblock after the original payment structure came under governance scrutiny. SolidProof initially required 100% upfront payment and questioned Terra Classic’s payment reliability. Now, the security company says it would accept a 50% upfront payment arrangement.

The development comes after Terra Classic Proposal 12228, titled “Fund Terra Classic Security Audit by SolidProof & Fixes by OrbitLabs,” failed to secure the required governance support.

The proposal sought $70,800 for the SolidProof security audit, with OrbitLabs set to handle the implementation of any required fixes for an additional $20,000. Under the original proposal, SolidProof would receive its full audit payment upfront, while OrbitLabs would be paid after completing its work.

SolidProof Wanted 100% Upfront Payment

The original proposal explicitly requested that the full SolidProof audit fee be paid upfront from the Terra Classic community pool.

The proposal described this as an exception to the standard Pay Per Job model, arguing that SolidProof was an external security auditor rather than a Terra Classic developer. OrbitLabs, meanwhile, would remain under the standard payment structure and receive its $20,000 fee after completing the required fixes.

SolidProof also defended its requirement for upfront payment during the discussion.

In a statement cited in the proposal discussion, SolidProof said:

“How can anyone assume that work will be completed in full without payment up front?”

The company also questioned Terra Classic’s payment reliability, stating that LUNC was not its most trustworthy client when it came to payment capacity.

SolidProof further said it was comfortable dropping the proposal because its development capacity was already booked until the end of 2027.

The comments added another layer to an already heated discussion over whether Terra Classic should make an exception to its Pay Per Job approach for an external auditor.

Then SolidProof Changed Its Position

After the proposal came under pressure, SolidProof indicated that it could accept a lower upfront payment.

The company stated:

“Minimum 50% would be an option for us. But we are not going below, thats too much risk for us.”

That represents a significant change from the original 100% upfront requirement.

Under the new position, SolidProof would still require half of the agreed audit fee before beginning the work, but the company would no longer insist that the entire audit payment be made upfront.

This does not mean that a new agreement has already been reached with Terra Classic.

It means SolidProof has publicly indicated that 50% upfront is an acceptable minimum payment structure from its side.

Why the Payment Issue Matters

The dispute is important because Terra Classic has been operating under a Pay Per Job model designed around paying for completed work.

The Terra Classic open work framework states that payment should be made after successful completion of the accepted work package, or after successful delivery of an accepted milestone when a quote is divided into stages.

That created a direct point of discussion around the SolidProof proposal.

Supporters of Proposal 12228 argued that SolidProof should be treated differently because it is an external security auditor rather than a developer working directly on Terra Classic. They argued that the Pay Per Job framework was not designed for an external auditing company.

Other community members questioned whether a large upfront payment was appropriate when the community pool would be providing the funds.

The disagreement ultimately became one of the major issues surrounding Proposal 12228.

Proposal 12228 Failed to Reach Quorum

Proposal 12228 was put to an on chain governance vote.

The latest governance record shows 35.14% voter turnout against a required 40% quorum, meaning quorum was not reached in the displayed voting result. The proposal had 66.49% Yes, 0.15% No, 33.29% No With Veto and 0.06% Abstain among the votes recorded.

Therefore, the proposal did not move forward in its submitted form.

This is important because the failure does not necessarily mean the Terra Classic community rejected the idea of a security audit itself.

Instead, the result leaves open questions about the audit provider, payment structure, governance requirements and how the work should be funded.

Will SolidProof Resubmit the Proposal?

The change from 100% upfront to 50% upfront creates a possible path for further discussions.

However, there is no confirmed announcement that SolidProof and the Terra Classic community will resubmit Proposal 12228 with the revised 50% payment structure.

A new proposal would need to establish the exact payment terms and demonstrate how those terms would fit within the governance process.

If a revised proposal is submitted, the community would also have to consider whether the audit scope, cost, payment schedule and implementation plan remain acceptable.

For now, the only confirmed change is SolidProof’s stated willingness to consider 50% upfront as its minimum.

Terra Classic Has Another Audit Proposal

The SolidProof proposal is also no longer the only security audit option being discussed by the Terra Classic community.

A separate proposal has been introduced for an Oak Security audit of the Terra Classic core chain.

The Oak proposal lists a $72,000 fixed audit fee and compares its structure directly with Proposal 12228. It proposes a maximum community pool request of $74,000, including a $2,000 buffer for on chain tax and conversion costs. The proposal also states that the identified fixes would be handled without an additional development fee under its proposed arrangement.

That gives Terra Classic another potential route toward an independent security review.

From 100% to 50%: The Question Now Moves Back to Governance

The SolidProof situation has now taken an unexpected turn.

The company initially demanded 100% upfront payment, while also publicly questioning Terra Classic’s payment reliability. After the proposal failed to move forward, SolidProof indicated that 50% upfront would be its minimum acceptable arrangement.

The change does not guarantee that the SolidProof audit will return to governance.

It does, however, create a different starting point for negotiations between SolidProof and the Terra Classic community.

The next major question is whether the two sides can agree on payment terms that satisfy both SolidProof’s commercial requirements and Terra Classic’s governance expectations.

Until a new proposal is officially submitted and voted on, the future of the SolidProof audit remains unresolved.