Terra Classic’s $70,800 SolidProof Audit: PRO and CON Explained
Terra Classic Proposal #12228 is seeking $70,800 from the Community Pool for a 10 week SolidProof security audit, with the full payment proposed upfront before the work begins.
The proposal puts two important issues side by side: the need for an independent security review of the Terra Classic blockchain and the way Community Pool funds should be paid to an external service provider.
Supporters focus on the value of an independent security audit and argue that SolidProof’s payment terms should be considered as part of securing the service.
Opponents focus on the 100% upfront payment, raising questions about Community Pool risk and whether the arrangement is consistent with Terra Classic’s previously approved Pay Per Job model.
For $LUNC holders, understanding both sides requires looking beyond the $70,800 price tag and examining the audit scope, payment structure, accountability, and governance principles involved.
What Is Terra Classic Proposal #12228?
Proposal #12228 requests $70,800 from the Terra Classic Community Pool to fund a security audit by SolidProof.
The planned engagement is expected to last approximately 10 weeks.
The work includes an initial security assessment, time for developers to address identified issues, and a follow up review to verify the fixes.
The main point attracting attention is the proposed payment arrangement.
Under the proposal, the entire $70,800 would be paid upfront before the audit begins.
This payment structure is important because Terra Classic has previously approved a Pay Per Job model, where payments are connected to completed work.
PRO: Why Some $LUNC Holders Support the Proposal
Independent Security Review
One of the main arguments supporting Proposal #12228 is the need for an independent security review of the Terra Classic codebase.
An external audit can provide another layer of security analysis and potentially identify vulnerabilities that may not be discovered during normal development and testing.
For supporters, an independent review can provide additional information about the security of the blockchain and its underlying code.
SolidProof Provides Professional Audit Services
Supporters also point to SolidProof’s experience providing blockchain security audit services.
The proposed engagement is not limited to a single review. It includes an initial assessment, time for developers to address findings, and a follow up review.
From this perspective, the $70,800 covers a broader security engagement rather than a simple one time code inspection.
Upfront Payment May Be Required
Supporters argue that the payment terms may reflect the commercial requirements of the external service provider.
A 10 week engagement requires the company to allocate personnel and resources to the project.
If SolidProof requires payment before beginning the engagement, accepting those terms could be necessary to secure the audit.
Security Is a Community Expense
Another argument is that blockchain security can justify spending Community Pool funds.
A security vulnerability could potentially create financial and operational consequences for the network.
Supporters therefore view the audit as an investment in identifying potential security issues before they become larger problems.
CON: Why Some $LUNC Holders Oppose the Proposal
The $70,800 Would Be Paid Upfront
The biggest concern is the proposed 100% upfront payment.
Critics question whether the Community Pool should transfer the entire $70,800 before the audit work has been completed.
Under a milestone based arrangement, payments could instead be connected to specific stages or completed deliverables.
Questions About the Pay Per Job Model
Terra Classic previously approved a Pay Per Job model for development work.
Critics argue that the principle behind this model is to connect Community Pool payments with completed work.
This raises a question about whether an external security provider should operate under different payment conditions.
The issue is therefore not necessarily whether Terra Classic should conduct an audit, but how the audit should be funded.
Greater Financial Risk for the Community Pool
A full upfront payment means the Community Pool takes on the financial risk at the beginning of the engagement.
If the project experiences delays, disagreements, incomplete deliverables, or other issues, the Community Pool would already have transferred the full amount.
Critics argue that milestone based payments could provide additional financial protection.
Potential Precedent for Future Contractors
Another concern is the precedent created by the payment structure.
If Terra Classic approves a full upfront payment for this audit, future external contractors could potentially point to the arrangement when negotiating Community Pool funded work.
This makes the proposal relevant not only to the SolidProof audit but also to how future external service agreements could be structured.
Proposal #12228 PRO vs CON
| PRO | CON |
|---|---|
| Terra Classic can receive an independent security review | The full $70,800 would be paid upfront |
| SolidProof provides blockchain security audit services | The payment structure differs from milestone based payments |
| The engagement includes an initial audit and follow up review | Critics question its consistency with the Pay Per Job model |
| Security auditing can help identify potential vulnerabilities | The Community Pool takes greater financial risk upfront |
| Upfront terms may be required to secure the service | The arrangement could influence future contractor agreements |
What Does the $70,800 Actually Cover?
The proposed payment is connected to a broader audit process rather than only an initial code review.
The engagement is expected to include:
| Stage | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Initial security audit | Examine the relevant Terra Classic code for potential vulnerabilities |
| Development response | Allow developers to address identified issues |
| Follow up review | Check the fixes implemented after the initial assessment |
| Final audit process | Complete the agreed security engagement |
The exact value of the audit therefore depends not only on the initial findings but also on the follow up work and final deliverables.
Why the Payment Structure Matters
The central issue surrounding Proposal #12228 can be understood through two different priorities.
The PRO position places greater focus on securing the independent audit and accepting the commercial payment terms required by the service provider.
The CON position places greater focus on protecting Community Pool funds and maintaining consistency with Terra Classic’s Pay Per Job principles.
Both positions therefore focus on different parts of the same proposal.
The question is not simply whether security auditing is valuable.
It is also about how Community Pool funds should be used to obtain that security service.
What $LUNC Holders Should Look At
For community members reviewing Proposal #12228, several details are important.
Audit scope: What parts of the Terra Classic codebase will be reviewed?
Deliverables: What specific reports and results will the community receive?
Payment structure: Why is the full amount required upfront?
Accountability: What protections exist if the engagement is delayed or the agreed work is not completed?
Governance consistency: How does the proposed arrangement compare with Terra Classic’s existing Pay Per Job framework?
Future precedent: Could the payment structure affect how future external contractors are funded?
These points provide a clearer way to evaluate the proposal than focusing only on the $70,800 price.
Final Takeaway
Terra Classic Proposal #12228 puts a $70,800 SolidProof security audit and its upfront payment structure under community consideration.
The PRO side emphasizes the value of an independent security review, SolidProof’s professional audit services, and the need to accept the provider’s commercial terms.
The CON side focuses on the 100% upfront payment, Community Pool financial risk, consistency with the Pay Per Job model, and the potential precedent for future contractors.
For $LUNC holders, the key question is therefore not simply the cost of the audit. It is whether the proposed security benefits, payment structure, accountability, and governance principles align with how the Terra Classic community wants to manage Community Pool funds.
