Anza is requiring security researchers to pay a non-refundable 0.5 SOL fee for each Alpenglow bug report submitted before the competition closes at 16:00 UTC on Aug. 19, creating a cost barrier around a high-stakes review of proposed new Solana consensus code. The filing must go through a designated portal that burns the fee and creates a confidential GitHub Security Advisory, while reports sent through any other channel do not qualify. The contest covers SIMD-0326, which proposes Alpenglow as a backwards-incompatible replacement for Solana’s current Proof-of-History and TowerBFT consensus protocol, including new consensus components, validator integrations and the migration path. Researchers must identify the commit where a flaw appeared, reproduce it there and submit while the bug remains unfixed on Agave master, with proof-of-concept evidence required. The structure is designed to filter low-quality placeholder submissions, but it also means a valid finding with uncertain impact could become uneconomic to file. The advertised 50,000 SOL figure is an aggregate maximum unlocked only at the highest severity, while individual payouts range from 315 SOL to 25,000 SOL depending on category. Awards are decided after the Sept. 2 adjudication close, require KYC and are paid as lump sums in SOL locked for 12 months, leaving researchers to absorb an immediate filing burn in exchange for delayed and illiquid compensation. The rules also make priority depend on evidence rather than timestamp alone, exclude public or known issues and end eligibility once a fix reaches Agave master, meaning a report can lose payment eligibility even if it was reproduced on an earlier in-window commit. Alpenglow’s design uses BLS-based vote and certificate aggregation and verification, with several certificate types requiring 60% of stake and fast finalization requiring 80%, underscoring why the review matters for Solana’s planned consensus transition.