Terra Classic Proposal #12228 Puts PPJ Rules and Blockchain Audit Terms Under the Spotlight
Terra Classic governance is facing a debate over Proposal #12228, which seeks to fund a blockchain audit by German security company SolidProof, with OrbitLabs expected to implement any fixes identified during the process. The discussion has centered on whether Terra Classic’s existing Pay-Per-Job (PPJ) framework should apply to an external auditing company that operates under its own commercial payment terms.
The proposal has attracted attention from LUNC community members and validators because SolidProof requires payment upfront for its audit services. Supporters argue that this arrangement is different from the PPJ model used for developers working directly on Terra Classic infrastructure. The distinction has become one of the main issues influencing the governance vote.
According to the proposal discussion, PPJ was introduced through Proposal #11889 in November 2023 as Terra Classic transitioned L1 development away from a monthly payment structure toward payment for completed jobs. The system was designed around developers contributing directly to the chain, with payments tied to commissioned work and completion.
Terra Classic Audit Debate Centers on PPJ
Supporters of Proposal #12228 argue that an independent security auditor should not automatically be treated in the same way as an L1 developer. SolidProof would be providing a specialized external service, while OrbitLabs, which has worked on Terra Classic’s infrastructure, would handle implementation of fixes under the existing PPJ framework.
Under the proposed arrangement, the audit would be paid directly in LUNC to SolidProof, while OrbitLabs’ implementation work would remain subject to standard PPJ procedures. Supporters say this structure preserves accountability for development spending while allowing the external auditor to operate under its normal commercial agreement.
Related: Terra Classic Resumes After LUNC Security Fork Fixes Critical Smart Contract Flaw
Another point raised by supporters is that the proposal includes an exemption from PPJ for SolidProof rather than attempting to quietly circumvent the system. They argue that requiring an independent commercial company to change its established payment conditions to match an ecosystem-specific funding mechanism could make it more difficult for Terra Classic to engage external specialists.
The audit itself is presented as a way to identify potential security weaknesses following Terra Classic’s broader infrastructure development. A final audit report would reportedly be produced after identified issues are addressed, creating a second review stage rather than ending the process immediately after the initial assessment.
Supporters also argue that an independent audit could provide useful information to exchanges and other businesses assessing Terra Classic’s infrastructure. They point to potential benefits including improved security assurance, reduced technical risk and stronger documentation for organizations evaluating whether to support the network.
Validators Debate Proposal #12228
Opposition has focused in part on the upfront payment requirement. Some validators have reportedly voted against the proposal with veto power because they believe the arrangement conflicts with PPJ principles or creates an exception that governance should not make. That position reflects a broader concern about maintaining consistent controls over Community Pool spending.
Supporters have pushed back by arguing that PPJ should remain focused on Terra Classic development work rather than becoming a mandatory payment model for every external contractor. From that perspective, SolidProof’s commercial terms and OrbitLabs’ developer compensation fall into two separate categories that can be governed differently.
The dispute illustrates a recurring challenge for decentralized networks: balancing standardized treasury controls with the commercial requirements of outside companies. A governance framework can provide accountability for community-funded work, but external specialists may have their own contracts, pricing structures and payment policies.
Related: The LUNC Community Has Done Its Part—Who Is Building the Next Chapter?
There is also a question of how Terra Classic should approach independent security reviews as its infrastructure evolves. An external audit can identify vulnerabilities that may not be caught during normal development, although an audit itself does not eliminate all future security risks.
With the vote on Proposal #12228 approaching its deadline, validators remain central to the decision. The outcome will determine whether Terra Classic proceeds with the proposed SolidProof audit and the associated implementation work by OrbitLabs under the structure outlined in the proposal.
For the LUNC community, the debate extends beyond one audit. It raises a broader governance question over where PPJ accountability should apply, how external commercial services should be funded and how Terra Classic can obtain independent technical expertise without weakening existing spending controls.
About The Author
