Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing

216 DReps voted · 82 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote

Open a row to read the rationale.

• Yoroi W₳llet

  Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale

  Summary
  Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing." This position is not a judgment on the team or the value of the infrastructure they provide, but a considered view on proposal structure and the appropriate use of treasury resources.
  Rationale
  Project Cayley addresses a well-defined infrastructure need.
  The shift toward decentralized slice indexing is a logical response to the cost pressures that Leios will place on full-chain data providers, and the multi-chain architecture extending to Bitcoin opens meaningful longer-term possibilities. Yoroi supports the direction and recognises the technical credibility of the team behind it.

  The bundled structure complicates evaluation.
  Combining new infrastructure development with an operational subsidy for an existing commercial service under a single governance action prevents each from being assessed on its own merits. The subsidy component, covering the ongoing cost of a free tier operated by a business with an active paid product, raises questions that deserve separate consideration rather than being folded into a broader infrastructure vote.

  A clearer commercial sustainability case would strengthen the proposal.
  Without visibility into revenue, cost recovery, and the long-term funding model for the free tier, it is difficult to assess whether treasury support is structurally necessary or a transitional measure. Yoroi would be more inclined to support the operational component if it were accompanied by greater financial transparency and a defined path toward self-sustainability.

  Conclusion
  Yoroi values the role Blockfrost has played in the ecosystem and supports the ambition of Project Cayley. Our abstain reflects a structural concern about how this proposal is composed rather than any judgment on the team or the work. We would welcome a resubmission that separates the two components and allows the community to engage with each on its own terms.

• YUTA

  No435.8M ₳Rationale

  I vote NO to "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing."

  1. Rather than positioning Blockfrost as a public service, I believe it's better overall to position it as a service competing with other API providers, designing it as a pathway to guide users from the free tier to the paid tier.

  If it's positioned as a public service and eliminates other providers, there will be no competition within the ecosystem, and although a commercial tier is suggested in the proposal, its design priority will likely not increase. This includes not only price competition but also competition in terms of features, etc.

  I myself started using Blockfrost in the free tier last month, moved to the paid tier, and have now moved back to the free tier because I have my own server. I am one of the users for whom the free tier acted as a pathway to the paid tier.

  1. When using Treasury, I think it's beneficial to present a monetization and repayment plan, as seen in the current Eternl proposal. This would alleviate the concerns mentioned in point 1.

  ーーー

  私は「Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing」にNOを投票します。

  1.Blockfrostを公共サービスとして位置付けるよりも、他のAPIプロバイダーと競争をするサービスと位置付け、無料ティアを有料ティアへ誘導するための導線として設計した方が全体から見て良いと思います。

  公共サービスとして位置付け、他のプロバイダーを全滅させた場合、エコシステム内で競争がなくなり、商用ティアは提案書内に示唆されていませすが、おそらくそれを設計する優先度も高まりません。これは単に価格競争だけではなく、機能面などの競争を含みます。

  私自身、先月、Blockfrostを無料ティアで使い始めて、有料ティアへ移行し、現在また、自前のサーバーを用意したために無料ティアに移行しましたが、結局のところ、無料ティアは有料ティアへ誘導するための導線と設計するのは合理的です。

  2.トレジャリーを使用する場合、現在のEternlの提案書に見られるように、収益化と返済プランを提示することは有益だと思います。これにより1の懸念が軽減されます。

• Blockdaemon

  Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
• EMURGO

  Abstain293M ₳Rationale

  Summary
  EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on the treasury withdrawal titled "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing", with rationale outlined below.
  Rationale
  Blockfrost has played a meaningful role in lowering the barrier to building on Cardano, and Project Cayley addresses a genuine infrastructure challenge. As Leios scales throughput, the cost of full-chain indexing will become increasingly prohibitive for smaller operators, and a decentralized slice indexing model is the right direction for ensuring that data infrastructure remains accessible as the network grows.

  The concern is not with the Cayley work itself, but with the structure of this proposal. Bundling new R&D infrastructure with an operational subsidy for an existing commercial service makes it difficult to evaluate the two components on their own merits. The operational subsidy raises reasonable questions about where the appropriate boundary lies between treasury support and the commercial sustainability of a freemium business that operates a paid tier alongside its free offering.

  EMURGO believes both components may have merit when assessed independently, and would find it easier to take a clear position if they were presented separately. A proposal focused on Cayley as standalone infrastructure work, with the operational subsidy either restructured or accompanied by clearer financial transparency, would provide a stronger basis for treasury consideration.

• CryptoCrow

  Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
• Eternl DRep Committee

  No222.9M ₳Rationale

  Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

  ❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
  ✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
  ✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
  ✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
  ❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
  ➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
  ✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
  ❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
  ❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
  ❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
  ✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

  Combined:

  ✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
  ❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
  ➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

  All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

  We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

  But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

• Sebastien Guillemot セバ

  Abstain174.6M ₳Rationale

  I think Project Cayley could be architectured in a lot of different ways which has a very big impact on whether or not voting for this proposal makes sense. For example, projects like Paima and txpipe have had a lot of different thoughts about ways to attempt indexing in different ways and commercializing those ideas. I think a lot of the negativity on this proposal comes from lack of clarity, and therefore people just assume it will go to fund Blockfrost operations as-is (which, from my understanding, isn't really the case)

  that being said, I generally abstain for commercial proposals so I will be abstaining from this one as well

• Everstake

  No165.7M ₳No rationale
• Cardano Foundation

  No120.2M ₳Rationale

  This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting rationales for nine Treasury Withdrawal governance actions submitted by Input Output Global.

  A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  We have decided to create a unified document to record our votes as many of the initiatives are connected.

  We invite the proposers and anyone else from the Cardano Community to carefully review our individual rationales below per proposal, as well as the following table.

  Governance Action Title	CF DRep Vote
  97. IO - Developer Experience Initiative	NO
  98. IO - Cardano Upgrades	YES
  99. IO - Consensus Initiative	YES
  100. IO & Ensurable Systems - Cardano Maintenance Initiative	ABSTAIN
  101. IO & Midgard Labs - L2 Scalability Initiative	ABSTAIN
  102. IO - Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration	YES
  103. IO & VacuumLabs - Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability	NO
  104. Blockfrost - Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing	NO
  105. Pogun - Capital Without Compromise	YES

  Individual Rationales

  The following section contains all nine individual voting rationales for the above-mentioned proposals.

  97. IO - Developer Experience Initiative

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes NO. We are eager to collaborate on DevX, but this proposal is expensive, lacks financial granularity, and risks duplicating ecosystem efforts. We encourage returning with a leaner, more detailed, and coordinated resubmission addressing the points as recommended below.

  Rationale Statement

  We recognize that developer onboarding is a critical vertical, and we appreciate the proposers targeting legitimate ecosystem pain points. While we fully support the overarching goals, we cannot approve this treasury withdrawal in its current form due to the following structural and financial concerns:

  1. Costs Lacking Granularity: The request for approximately 900k USD is exceptionally high for a 6-month timeframe. The budget lacks a meaningful Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) breakdown, allocating 81% to a broadly categorized "Development & Engineering" bucket. This makes it difficult to distinguish between community bounties, hackathon prizes, and administrative overhead, hindering our ability to evaluate financial proportionality.Creating CLI tooling, cleaning documentation, and building contract templates can be achieved in a cost-effective way which does not require a budget of this size.
  2. Overlap with Active CF and Intersect Initiatives: The proposal intends to restructure the "Developer HUB" using the Developer Portal as its primary entry point. The Developer Portal is already actively maintained, funded, and strategized by the Cardano Foundation alongside Intersect committees. While we are highly receptive to ecosystem contributions, requesting nearly 900k USD to duplicate or restructure ongoing work is inefficient. We would welcome collaboration on this workstream to improve cost efficiency.
  3. Severe Execution Risk: The proposal requests funding for only six months. The proposer indicates that the engineering team for these workstreams has not yet been established and will be hired using the funds released from this withdrawal. Setting up a new team and familiarizing them with the necessary ecosystem intricacies will conservatively consume a significant portion of this short timeframe, jeopardizing the delivery schedule. A future proposal would be significantly strengthened by establishing an upfront execution structure. Clearly identifying, aligning, and sharing ownership with ecosystem partners from the outset ensures precise accountability for all deliverables.
  4. Lack of Long-Term Ownership and Maintenance: There is no clear transition strategy for the resulting products (such as cardano-init or the contracts library) after the initial six-month funding period. The ecosystem requires continuous, ongoing feedback and maintenance for developer tools, rather than a highly expensive, short-term sprint that risks leaving behind abandoned infrastructure if subsequent funding is not secured.
  5. Open Source Fragmentation: While cardano-init is explicitly designed as an aggregation layer to unify and elevate existing ecosystem tools rather than replace them, its long-term value hinges heavily on sustained community buy-in. The proposal’s strategy for allocating bounties and incentives to existing tool maintainers is a strong step toward coordination. However, the primary risk shifts from community fragmentation to the execution of integrations: we must ensure that external toolmakers actively maintain these integrations over time so the aggregator remains a reliable, up-to-date entry point for new developers.

  Conclusion

  The Cardano Foundation votes NO. While the ambition to improve Cardano's developer experience is valued, this proposal's steep cost, execution risks, and overlapping scope prevent us from approving it in its current form. To secure approval, a resubmission must be leaner, more cost-effective and provide a granular FTE budget breakdown for financial transparency. It should also integrate with active Cardano Foundation and Intersect initiatives to avoid duplicating ongoing work, establish an execution structure with a pre-identified team to ensure delivery within the tight six-month window, and outline a strategy for long-term maintenance and community buy-in.

  98. IO - Cardano Upgrades

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes YES. CIP-159, CPS-23, and Native Babel Fees have potential to improve L2 reserves, protect against volatility, and improve onboarding. Despite certain budget and execution concerns, we view the 13.1M ada ask as an acceptable investment.

  Rationale Statement

  We recognize the impact these three platform-level capabilities will have on Cardano’s economic models and ecosystem growth. We are voting YES based on the following technical and strategic assessments:

  1. Critical Infrastructure and Economic Resilience: The CIP-159 (Account Address Enhancements) upgrade bridges the gap between UTXO and Account models. By solving the minUTxO constraints, it enables micro-fee collection, cheaper DeFi batcher operations, and introduces new smart contract paradigms more familiar to EVM developers. Furthermore, it is a prerequisite for seamless L2 reserve management. CPS-23 (Multi-Asset Treasury) enables the Cardano Treasury to hold stablecoins or other native assets, which is a next step for long-term sustainability. It could protect the ecosystem's funding runway from ADA price volatility and introduce the potential for diverse treasury holdings.
  2. Native Babel Fees and Onboarding: While non-native (smart contract-based) Babel fees currently exist within the ecosystem, they have struggled to gain significant traction. Allowing users to interact with Cardano DApps using stablecoins or bridged assets without first acquiring ADA will hopefully be a driver for mainstream institutional and retail adoption.

  3. Feedback for Ongoing Alignment: While we support funding this initiative, there are elements of this proposal which raised concerns and we wish to offer feedback.

  Implementing CIP-159 fundamentally alters Cardano's accounting model. With alternative nodes like Amaru and Dingo actively in development, introducing such massive ledger changes requires careful coordination. Making frequent, significant modifications directly onto the Layer 1 core ledger introduces substantial maintenance fatigue for open-source builders, which can be lessened with coordination. We urge IO to collaborate to establish a clear framework for alignment with other node implementation and material downstream tooling teams to prevent consensus fragmentation.

  Workstream 2 allocates roughly $565,000 USD primarily to design and draft the Multi-Asset Treasury CIP. For a design-phase deliverable, this is a premium investment. We expect this effort to feature rigorous, high-quality deliverables, contributions to improvements to the overall CIP process and extensive community consultation to reflect the amount.

  Workstream 3 includes integration with the Lace wallet. Given the use of treasury funds, we expect the IO team to ensure that the underlying infrastructure for Native Babel Fees is open and easily accessible for all ecosystem wallets, Tx builders (e.g., Mesh, Lucid Evolution), and indexers, rather than focusing support solely on its own products.

  Although these concerns are valid, we appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal which contributed to this voting decision.

  Conclusion

  The Cardano Foundation votes YES. The combination of Account Enhancements, a Multi-Asset Treasury, and Native Babel Fees represents a step forward for Cardano's scalability, developer experience, and economic sustainability.

  99. IO - Consensus Initiative

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Leios is important for scaling Cardano and long-term competitiveness. Despite concerns over budget opacity and prior funding overlaps, delaying this upgrade risks ecosystem stagnation. We approve to ensure development continuity.

  Rationale Statement

  We recognize the impact that the Consensus Initiative (Leios) will have on the network’s capacity. We are voting YES based on the following technical and strategic assessments:

  1. Essential Base Layer Scaling: Scaling through Leios is fundamentally positive and provides Cardano with a massive upgrade. To ensure Cardano remains competitive with newer Layer 1 blockchains in terms of throughput, upgrading the base protocol is non-negotiable. This prevents the network from adopting unsustainable design patterns, such as forcing all high-volume activity to Layer 2 solutions.
  2. Core Infrastructure Investment: This proposal is a direct investment in the core protocol infrastructure. The Leios research phase has produced solid, academic-level work fully in the spirit of a peer-reviewed blockchain.
  3. Development Continuity: Leios development requires highly specialized knowledge. Voting NO at this critical juncture would risk halting momentum, meaning expert engineering teams would need to be replaced or re-assembled at a later date. Approving this proposal ensures the unbroken continuation of the roadmap toward the Dijkstra era.

  Conclusion

  The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We recognize that Leios is a credible path available to meet Cardano's 2030 scaling ambitions. While we have significant concerns regarding the insufficiently detailed, escalating budget, the risk of derailing base-layer scaling is too significant.

  100. IO & Ensurable Systems - Cardano Maintenance Initiative

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal, which contributed to our voting decision. While continuous maintenance is important for long-term network stability, this 62.1M ada proposal presents fiscal uncertainty and the scope appears to duplicate funding of other concurrent initiatives.

  Rationale Statement

  While the critical importance of keeping the network operating securely is undisputed, our evaluation reflects several material concerns regarding the current formulation of the proposal:

  1. Lack of Budget Detail/Potential Duplications: This proposal bundles nine maintenance workstreams into a single budget, grouping 74% (46M ada) of the funds into a broad "Development" category, which, without a granular Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) headcount breakdown, limits the capacity to verify cost efficiency. Additionally, given that the same development teams contribute across multiple initiatives, there appears to be a funding overlap with resources already requested in the Upgrades, Plutus, Consensus, and Developer Experience proposals. Providing a more detailed budget breakdown would help the community in conducting a clear cost-benefit analysis and ensure there is no duplication of funding.
  2. Lack of Quantifiable Deliverables: The proposal functions structurally as an open-ended funding commitment lacking defined technical boundaries, presenting a deficit of tangible deliverables, milestones, or open-source repository evidence mapping out the work. Without clear engineering baselines, it acts as an unquantifiable blanket retainer that challenges our ability to properly assess the proposal.
  3. Substantial Budget Inflation: The requested amount of 62.1M ada (approximately 14.9M USD) represents a high allocation of treasury resources. Industry baselines indicate that these costs are significantly inflated relative to the actual operational overhead required for equivalent DevOps and core maintenance tasks.
  4. Structural Preference for Targeted Initiatives: The Cardano Foundation maintains a clear structural preference for a modular funding framework wherever possible. Funding generalized blanket proposals introduces fiscal uncertainty, whereas smaller, targeted sub-proposals (such as specific consensus, developer experience, or scaling layer initiatives) feature transparent line-item budgets and clearly defined milestones that allow for rigorous milestone-based verification.
  5. Node Diversity Risks: To support a healthy multi-client ecosystem, overarching services such as global network monitoring and core documentation (e.g., the Cardano Blueprint) should be gradually decoupled from node-specific maintenance to ensure a completely product-agnostic and inclusive infrastructure landscape.

  Conclusion

  The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the critical nature of network maintenance and the expertise of the proposing teams. However, we require greater financial transparency, and a more node-agnostic approach to ecosystem tooling in order to properly assess this proposal. If this proposal does not reach the required approval threshold, we ask the proposers to refine and resubmit. A resubmission would greatly benefit from a decoupled structure, detailed FTE allocations, and an independent oversight mechanism to ensure verifiable and neutral delivery.

  101. IO & Midgard Labs - L2 Scalability Initiative

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. While Layer 2 scaling is important for enterprise DApps, the proposal's lack of budget granularity, contested IP, and unresolved 2025 milestones introduce uncertainty. While we do not oppose this proposal, we urge a refined resubmission if it does not pass.

  Rationale Statement

  We support the technological objectives and the necessity of Layer 2 scaling, however we require further clarity regarding the following uncertainties before we are able to support:

  1. Unclear Scope and Structural Bundling: The proposal bundles two Layer 2 technologies at different stages of their respective product lifecycles into a single governance action. Furthermore, the financial distribution is skewed; despite being a titular focus of the initiative, the Midgard workstream receives only 9% of the allocated funding, while Hydra consumes approximately 73%.
  2. Milestone Accountability and Prior Deliverables: Midgard's 2025 funded milestones under contract EC-0001-25 were previously reported as past due and paused. While new evidence was submitted on May 19 to claim milestones 2–5, these submissions remain pending final verification. Committing additional treasury resources without a fully finalized reconciliation of past deliverables introduces significant fiscal uncertainty.
  3. Budget Granularity and Potential Overlaps: The 10.4M ada request lacks a granular breakdown. The technical scope for Workstream 2 (Hydra) closely mirrors the team's existing public roadmap and open pull requests, making it difficult to isolate net-new work from previously funded core engineering efforts. Additionally, the 1.8M ada requested for a bespoke Data Availability (DA) prototype does not sufficiently clarify why existing modular alternatives are unsuitable.
  4. Technical, IP, and Organizational Risks: The proposal contains contradictory timelines regarding the Midgard mainnet launch (end of 2026 versus Q1 2027). Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) also noted unresolved authorship and payment disputes (e.g., PR #434) that introduce contested-IP risks. Finally, the legal distinction and relationship between "Midgard Labs" and Anastasia Labs require clarification to ensure accountability.
  5. Unsubstantiated Metrics and Commercial Dependencies: Performance claims such as "10,000+ TPS" are presented without concrete benchmarking data or baseline metrics. Furthermore, the proposal relies heavily on specific commercial partners (like Delta DeFi and Masumi) continuing to build, without providing contingency plans. Ideally, commercial entities utilizing the stack for enterprise applications should contribute to the hardening of the infrastructure they rely upon.

  Conclusion

  The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal which contributed to our voting decision. We value the technical ambition of this initiative and respect the engineering teams involved, but we cannot support this proposal in its current state without proper budget breakdowns, clarity on IP, and clear accountability for past milestones. If this proposal does not reach the required approval threshold, we ask the proposers to refine and resubmit their initiative.

  102. IO - Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration

  Summary

  The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Automating formal verification is a strategic public good that reinforces network security. Despite significant concerns regarding budget opacity and adoption risks, the ecosystem benefits outweigh the reservations.

  Rationale Statement

  We support this proposal because it aligns with Cardano's core value proposition of security, correctness, and determinism. Our YES vote is grounded in the following primary drivers:

  1. Strategic Digital Trust Infrastructure: Cardano’s underlying smart contract model, based on Lambda calculus and determinism, is uniquely positioned for formal mathematical verification. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities in EVM-based DeFi protocols, such as the ~$300M Kelp DAO exploit, highlight that verifiable security is a strict prerequisite for institutional adoption. This enables a shift away from high-risk environments toward highly secure, institutional-grade DeFi applications.
  2. Universal Ecosystem Support via UPLC: The proposed automated verification tool, Blaster, operates directly on Untyped Plutus Core (UPLC). This architectural choice is strategic, as it avoids siloed development and simultaneously supports developers across the ecosystem, regardless of whether they write in Aiken, Plutus, or other high-level smart contract languages.
  3. Lowering the Barrier to Entry: Historically, formal verification has been restricted to specialized experts. By providing a Lean4-based verification enabler, integrating it directly into native toolchains (e.g., VS Code), and offering extended "one-click" containerized developer environments, this initiative significantly democratizes access to production-ready, secure smart contract development.
  4. AI-Agentic Workflow Readiness: As software engineering transitions toward AI-assisted development, the emphasis on robust Command Line Interfaces (CLIs) within this proposal provides a strong, secure foundation for future integration with autonomous AI agents, ensuring Cardano's toolchain remains forward-looking.
  5. Reusable and Auditable Components: The initiative focuses on d
• JAZZ

  Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
• CardanoYoda (MANDA Pool)

  No91.5M ₳Rationale

  As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing

  Blockfrost has received multiple funding rounds from Catalyst in the past. Last year, $1,300,000 from the Treasury. That is enough support for a private company under the IO umbrella to become a sustainable business.

  While Blockfrost provides a free tier, it operates a freemium model where production usage is monetized. Without disclosure of revenue, cost recovery, and sustainability metrics, it is not possible to determine whether this subsidy is necessary or whether it risks funding a commercially viable business.

  While Blockfrost is clearly an important provider, no independent data has been provided to justify subsidizing its operational costs over other competing services.

  Blockfrost is one of several capable API providers in the ecosystem, alongside Maestro and Cardanoscan, while decentralized alternatives such as Koios further reduce reliance on any single service. This suggests that the ecosystem does not depend on Blockfrost in a way that would justify exclusive treasury support.

  If we pick winners by subsidizing their business, others must also seek funding from the Treasury, or we support centralization by ensuring Blockfrost dominance. The winner should emerge from healthy competition, not through governance decisions.

  To be clear, access to blockchain data is essential, but this does not require subsidizing a specific private API provider.

  The ecosystem would benefit more from investment in open, decentralized, or protocol-level data access solutions that reduce reliance on any single service.

  Allocating treasury funds to an IOG-aligned service risks reinforcing centralization at the infrastructure layer, especially in a market where multiple alternative providers exist.

  Additionally, this proposal bundles two distinct components: the development of new infrastructure (Project Cayley) and an operational subsidy for Blockfrost's existing services. Combining them into a single vote prevents proper evaluation of each on its own merits and forces an all-or-nothing decision.

• BTBF_XSP

  Abstain88.6M ₳Rationale

  The merits of the proposal (Project Cayley's decentralized slice indexing, etc.) are clear. However, I am myself a Blockfrost Icebreaker operator (the company's node-operation program), which creates a potential conflict of interest between the outcome of this proposal and my own position. To preserve neutrality, I abstain rather than take a side.

• SIPO

  Yes86M ₳Rationale

  SIPO DRep votes YES on Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing.

  Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx
  DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
  Date: 2026-05-09

  SIPO supports this proposal as a coherent investment in Cardano's data-access infrastructure layer at exactly the moment Leios will make traditional full-chain indexing economically prohibitive. The proposal funds two complementary components: Project Cayley ($1,000,000) introducing decentralized slice indexing so SPOs and operators of all sizes can serve subsets of the chain rather than the entire dataset, and an operational subsidy ($900,000) sustaining the free-tier infrastructure that Blockfrost has carried alone since inception and that today serves approximately 90% of all free-tier Cardano API traffic.

  Why SIPO votes YES

  1. Cayley addresses the Leios-driven indexing cost explosion before it becomes a crisis. The proposal documents that at 150-350 TxkB/s throughput levels (within Leios's design envelope), a single full-chain indexer faces $3,162-$7,871 per year per indexer in cumulative growth costs — a 3,637-8,492% increase over current state. Without Cayley's slice indexing, this concentrates Cardano data infrastructure in a small number of well-capitalized providers and prices out smaller SPOs and operators. Decentralized data access is part of the same decentralization principle that motivates SIPO's continued support for SPO economic diversity, alt-clients, and node-diversity infrastructure.

  2. The free-tier subsidy reflects an honest cost-sharing for public-good infrastructure. Blockfrost has voluntarily absorbed 100% of free-tier infrastructure costs since inception, and the proposal documents that approximately 90% of all free-tier Cardano API traffic flows through Blockfrost. This is not a request to start a free-tier subsidy — it is a recognition that ecosystem-critical infrastructure carried by a single entity is structurally fragile, and Treasury support is the appropriate way to share that responsibility. The $900,000 operational subsidy covers personnel (3 DevOps in follow-the-sun rotation, dedicated maintenance developer, support staff) and underlying infrastructure costs.

  3. Multi-chain indexing architecture (Cardano + Midnight + Bitcoin) opens cross-ecosystem developer flow. Cayley's modular multi-chain architecture lets developers integrate with Cardano, Midnight, and Bitcoin through a unified API. This positions Cardano data infrastructure as a unified entry point across blockchains, broadening the addressable developer market and creating a structural reason for non-Cardano-native developers to engage with the ecosystem. This connects directly to the Cardano 2030 narrative of Cardano as a multi-chain-aware execution layer.

  4. SPO Icebreakers create a new economic role for SPOs. By lowering the resource bar to participate in data infrastructure, Cayley enables SPOs to operate as data providers (Icebreakers) rather than only block producers. This diversifies SPO revenue beyond staking rewards and reduces delegation concentration risk over time. It is structurally aligned with SIPO's view that SPO economic diversity is a leading indicator of operational decentralization.

  Governance and oversight structure is identical to the standard SIPO has approved on Amaru, Dingo, HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo, DeFi Liquidity Budget, and Orion Fund (Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework, Intersect administration, 5-entity Oversight Committee, multi-signature disbursement, refund clause). 99.9% uptime SLA is committed quarterly across the delivery period (Q2-Q4 2026 milestones). Net Change Limit compliant.

  Expectations (YES with binding operational commitments)

  • Cayley delivery transparency on Bitcoin indexer extension: The Q4 2026 Bitcoin indexer milestone is the multi-chain claim made tangible. SIPO expects publication of community-accessible benchmarks demonstrating real-world performance of the Bitcoin indexer extension, not internal demos only.

  • Blockfrost commercial model rework transparency: The proposal references Blockfrost actively reworking its commercial model to ensure future pricing does not create barriers or negative dependencies for the ecosystem. SIPO expects this rework to be documented publicly with explicit ecosystem-friendly design commitments before the operational subsidy enters its second cycle (if any) — preventing a scenario where Treasury subsidizes a commercial pricing structure the community cannot evaluate.

  • SPO Icebreaker onboarding monthly disclosure: The Icebreaker model is one of the structural promises of the proposal. SIPO expects monthly publication of the number of SPOs onboarded as Icebreakers, geographic distribution, and any economic data on Icebreaker viability that would inform other SPOs considering the role.

  • Free-tier 99.9% uptime SLA monthly reporting: The SLA is the operational backbone of the subsidy justification. SIPO expects monthly uptime reporting (not only quarterly milestone snapshots) so that any SLA breach or trending degradation surfaces early.

  • Quarterly reporting in stable format: SIPO expects the same reporting discipline already standard on Amaru, Dingo, and HLabs.

  Closing

  Cayley addresses a structural Leios-driven cost problem before it becomes a crisis, the free-tier subsidy reflects honest cost-sharing for ecosystem-critical infrastructure, and the multi-chain architecture opens cross-ecosystem developer flow that Cardano cannot achieve through Cardano-only data providers. With expectations above treated as binding operational commitments, SIPO DRep votes YES.

  For these reasons, SIPO DRep votes YES.

  ---

  SIPO DRepとして、本提案「Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing」に賛成（YES）を投じます。

  Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx
  DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
  Date: 2026-05-09

  SIPOは本提案を、Cardanoのデータアクセスインフラ層への一貫した投資として支持します。Leiosが従来のフルチェーンインデキシングを経済的に成立しなくする、まさにそのタイミングでの投資です。本提案は2つの相補的コンポーネントに資金提供します：Project Cayley ($1,000,000) は分散化スライスインデキシングを導入し、SPOと様々な規模のオペレーターが全データセットではなくチェーンの subset を提供できるようにします。運用助成 ($900,000) はBlockfrostがinception以来独力で負担してきた、現在Cardano無料層APIトラフィックの約90%を提供する無料層インフラを維持します。

  SIPOがYESと判断する理由

  1. CayleyはLeios駆動のインデキシングコスト爆発を危機になる前に対処する。本提案は150-350 TxkB/sスループットレベル（Leiosの設計envelope内）で、単一フルチェーンインデクサーが累積成長コストとして年間$3,162-$7,871/インデクサーに直面することを文書化しています — 現状から3,637-8,492%の増加。Cayleyのスライスインデキシングなしでは、Cardanoデータインフラは少数の十分に資本を持つプロバイダーに集中し、小規模SPOやオペレーターはpriceされ排除されます。分散化されたデータアクセスは、SIPOのSPO経済多様性、alt-clients、ノード多様性インフラへの継続支持と同じ分散化原則の一部です。

  2. 無料層subsidyは公共財インフラの正直なコストシェアリングを反映。BlockfrostはinceptionからFree tierインフラコストを100%自発的に吸収してきており、本提案はCardano無料層APIトラフィックの約90%がBlockfrostを経由していることを文書化しています。これは無料層subsidyを開始する要請ではなく — 単一エンティティが負担するエコシステム重要インフラは構造的に脆弱であり、Treasury支援はその責任を共有する適切な方法であるという認識です。$900,000運用助成は人件費（follow-the-sun rotationの3 DevOps、専任メンテナンス開発者、サポートスタッフ）と基盤インフラコストをカバーします。

  3. Multi-chainインデキシングアーキテクチャ（Cardano + Midnight + Bitcoin）はクロスエコシステム開発者フローを開く。Cayleyのモジュラーmulti-chainアーキテクチャは、開発者がunified APIを通じてCardano、Midnight、Bitcoinと統合できるようにします。これはCardanoデータインフラをブロックチェーン横断のunified エントリーポイントとして位置づけ、addressable開発者マーケットを広げ、Cardano-native ではない開発者がエコシステムにエンゲージする構造的な理由を作ります。これはCardano 2030の multi-chain-aware execution layerとしてのCardanoのナラティブと直接接続します。

  4. SPO IcebreakersはSPOに新たな経済役割を作る。データインフラに参加するためのリソースバーを下げることで、CayleyはSPOがブロックプロデューサーだけでなくデータプロバイダー（Icebreakers）として運用することを可能にします。これはSPOの収益をstaking報酬を超えて多様化し、時間とともに委任集中リスクを減らします。SPO経済多様性が運用分散化の先行指標であるというSIPOの見解と構造的に整合しています。

  ガバナンス・監視構造はSIPOがAmaru、Dingo、HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo、DeFi Liquidity Budget、Orion Fundで承認した標準と同一です。99.9% uptime SLAがdelivery period（Q2-Q4 2026 milestones）で四半期ごとにcommitされています。Net Change Limit準拠。

  期待事項（YESには拘束力のある運用上のコミットメントを伴う）

  • Bitcoin indexer extensionへのCayleyデリバリー透明性：Q4 2026 Bitcoin indexerマイルストーンは multi-chain主張の具体化。SIPOはBitcoin indexer extensionの実世界performanceを示すcommunity-accessibleベンチマークの公開を期待 — 内部デモのみではなく。

  • Blockfrost営利モデル再構築の透明性：本提案はBlockfrostが将来の価格設定がエコシステムにバリアや負の依存性を生まないよう、commercial modelを能動的に再構築していることを参照しています。SIPOはこの再構築が、運用助成が二次サイクルに入る前（あれば）にecosystem-friendly設計の明示的commitmentを伴って公開文書化されることを期待します — Treasuryがコミュニティが評価できない商業価格構造を補助するシナリオを防ぐために。

  • SPO Icebreakerオンボーディングの月次開示：Icebreakerモデルは本提案の構造的約束の1つ。SIPOはIcebreakersとしてオンボードされたSPO数、地理的分散、およびIcebreaker viabilityに関する経済データの月次公開を期待します — 役割を検討する他のSPOに情報を提供するために。

  • 無料層99.9% uptime SLA月次報告：SLAはsubsidy正当化の運用バックボーン。SIPOは月次uptime報告を期待します（四半期マイルストーンスナップショットのみではなく） — SLA違反やトレンド劣化が早期に表面化するように。

  • 安定フォーマットでの四半期報告：Amaru、Dingo、HLabsで既に標準となっている報告規律を期待。

  結び

  CayleyはLeios駆動の構造的コスト問題を危機になる前に対処し、無料層subsidyはエコシステム重要インフラの正直なコストシェアリングを反映し、multi-chainアーキテクチャはCardano-onlyデータプロバイダー経由では達成できないクロスエコシステム開発者フローを開きます。上記期待事項が拘束力のある運用上のコミットメントとして扱われることを前提として、SIPO DRep は本提案に賛成（YES）を投じます。

  以上の理由により、SIPO DRepとして本提案に賛成（YES）を投じます。

• Army of Spies

  No84.3M ₳Rationale

  For many of the same reasons expressed by my fellow dReps (especially those related to the role of the free market and the deleterious effects of subsidization vs. competition), I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at the current time.

• Dumpling🥟

  No77.7M ₳No rationale
• Phil UPLC

  Yes76.8M ₳Rationale

  Support because RPC and indexing are table-stakes infrastructure for developer onboarding and application continuity, and because the current ecosystem has too much concentrated dependency on Blockfrost as a core access provider.

  A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  Support because RPC and indexing are table-stakes infrastructure for developer onboarding and application continuity, and because the current ecosystem has too much concentrated dependency on Blockfrost as a core access provider. The important funding case is decentralization: Project Cayley, decentralized slice indexing, and a broader operator model can move Cardano away from one dominant hosted path toward resilient, lower-cost, independently operated data access. This should be treated as crucial public infrastructure if it demonstrably reduces single-provider risk rather than deepening it.

• ranket

  Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
• SASA_nagamaru_ながまる

  No74.5M ₳Rationale

  I have decided to vote NO on this proposal.

  I understand the value and long-term importance of Project Cayley itself, particularly its decentralized slice indexing architecture designed for the Leios era. Reducing infrastructure costs and enabling more SPOs and operators to participate in data-serving infrastructure is a reasonable goal from both a decentralization and sustainability perspective.

  However, this proposal includes not only the development of Project Cayley, but also a substantial operational subsidy for Blockfrost’s existing free-tier services, which raises concerns for me.

  I recognize and appreciate Blockfrost’s significant contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and the fact that it has funded its free tier at its own expense for years. However, I believe the ecosystem should carefully evaluate how far Treasury funds should be used to support the ongoing operational costs of a specific service provider.

  I also believe there is a structural issue in combining two fundamentally different components — new decentralized infrastructure development and operational support for existing services — into a single proposal, making it difficult to evaluate each independently on its own merits.

  At the current stage of Cardano, I believe the highest priority should be strengthening real adoption, economic activity, and external capital inflows across the ecosystem. Considering the limited Treasury resources available, I believe funding should currently prioritize areas that more directly contribute to real-world demand and adoption.

  僕は本提案に対してNOを投じます。

  Project Cayleyそのものの方向性や、Leios時代を見据えた分散型インデックス構想については、一定の必要性と価値を理解しています。特に、将来的なチェーンデータ肥大化に対して、slice indexingによってインフラ参加コストを下げ、より多くのSPOや事業者がデータ提供に参加できるようにする思想自体は、Cardanoの分散性や持続可能性の観点から合理的だと考えています。

  一方で、今回の提案には、Project Cayleyの開発費だけでなく、Blockfrostの既存free tier運営費補助が大きく含まれており、この点に懸念があります。

  BlockfrostがこれまでCardano ecosystemへ大きく貢献し、free tierを自社負担で提供してきたことは理解しています。しかし、今回の提案では、Treasuryが特定サービスの継続的な運営コストをどこまで負担すべきかについて、慎重に判断する必要があると考えています。

  また、「新しい分散型インフラ開発」と「既存サービスへの運営補助」という性質の異なる要素が単一提案にまとめられており、それぞれを独立して評価しづらい構造にも課題を感じています。

  僕は、現在のCardanoにおいて最も重要なのは、実際の利用拡大や経済活動、外部資本流入など、ecosystem全体の実需を強めることだと考えています。限られたTreasury資金を考慮すると、現時点ではより直接的に実需やadoptionへ繋がる領域を優先すべきだと判断しました。

• Dave

  No73.1M ₳Rationale

  I vote NO. We funded this team over 1M USD via Catalyst and a 1.3M ADA withdrawal last year. Their private revenue must ensure self sustainability. Bundling creates ambiguity. Our Treasury must not subsidize operating expenses. Finally, I expect professionalism during active votes.

  A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  I am voting NO on the Project Cayley and Blockfrost Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the Blockfrost team for their immense historical contributions and unwavering dedication to our blockchain. However, I must respectfully dispute the assertion that their infrastructure currently serves ninety percent of our ecosystem free tier traffic. Through my close and ongoing conversations with builders across numerous projects, the reality on the ground indicates a much more diverse infrastructure landscape. While Blockfrost is undeniably a foundational pillar, this specific metric appears significantly overstated, fundamentally weakening the justification for such a massive operational subsidy.

  Furthermore, it is imperative to contextualize this request within the broader scope of their historical funding and active commercial models. The community has already generously backed this team with well over one million dollars across thirty seven separate Catalyst proposals, in addition to a substantial one million three hundred thousand ADA Treasury withdrawal granted just last year for their platform community budget. As a consistent paid user of their premium tier for quite some time, I know firsthand that they possess a successful commercial revenue stream. A private enterprise collecting premium subscription fees should naturally transition toward self sustainability, rather than relying on massive Treasury subsidies to permanently float their operating expenses.

  Additionally, I am fundamentally opposed to the practice of bundling disparate funding requests into a single proposal. Bundling inherently creates ambiguity in governance voting, forcing representatives to either accept unjustifiable expenditures or reject otherwise valuable initiatives. While I acknowledge the theoretical merit in decentralized slice indexing to prepare for Leios, funding this architecture today is premature. I would strongly prefer to see this research presented as a standalone proposal when Leios is actually mainnet ready. Only at that juncture can we accurately measure the empirical increase in usage and data requirements necessary to justify this scale of investment. With ADA having fallen out of the top ten and struggling in price action against competing blockchains, our capital must be ruthlessly directed toward immediate value accrual. I strongly encourage the team to unbundle this request and return when Leios is live with a purely research focused initiative and reduced ask.

  As a final note, I would like to clearly establish my expectations regarding community conduct. I strongly reinforce the absolute requirement for utmost professionalism across our ecosystem whenever any active proposal has been submitted for governance review.

• Peter Bui

  YesChanged62.7M ₳History

  Earlier votes

  Abstain2mo agoSuperseded

• Dori

  No53.8M ₳Rationale

  I'm voting NO on the Pogun and Blockfrost governance proposals.

  Both proposals are clearly important and meaningful for the ecosystem, but with limited treasury assets, we have to vote based on priorities to make sure those funds get used efficiently.

  First, on the broader question of commercial proposals: we already have Catalyst and Orion Fund in place as channels for projects to raise funding. I don't think it makes sense for the treasury to additionally invest in commercial companies and commercially-oriented projects on top of that.

  Blockfrost is genuinely the dominant RPC service in the Cardano ecosystem, but they run a business model with a paid premium tier. The argument that they need a subsidy because they hold 90% market share actually cuts the other way for me. It risks blocking other competitive indexer services from entering the market, undermining fair competition, and further entrenching their monopoly position. I think the healthier path for Blockfrost is to raise outside investment, or apply through Orion Fund or Catalyst, and let their business model prove its sustainability in fair competition with other players, rather than relying on treasury support.

  Pogun is an attractive proposal given how important Bitcoin DeFi is in this market. The revenue-return structure is a step up from a standard grant, but at the end of the day it's still a commercial project. If IO truly believes this is a strong business, the right move is for them to seed it with their own capital. Same as with Blockfrost, they should apply to Orion Fund, go through Catalyst, or pursue external seed investment. There's also a fairness issue here, since other BTCfi and bridge projects are already building in this space. If treasury money goes as a grant to some projects and not others, you end up distorting the market.

  My view is that the treasury is public-good capital, and it should be concentrated on the areas the market can't fund on its own, the shared infrastructure that benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem. Commercial projects should be funded through the channels built for that purpose, Orion Fund and Catalyst, plus the external capital markets.

• Goofycrisp

  Abstain50.5M ₳Rationale

  Blockfrost has clearly provided useful infrastructure and value to the Cardano ecosystem. However, there are fair concerns about using treasury funds to subsidize infrastructure that also has commercial users and paid services, especially when alternatives exist. I recognize the importance of reliable indexing and developer infrastructure, but I am not fully convinced this is the right treasury allocation at this stage.

• hix_coffeepool

  No50.4M ₳Rationale

  I am voting No on this proposal. As a DRep, I evaluate all treasury withdrawal governance actions against my published voting framework, with a focus on the healthy development and long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. This proposal does not meet the framework's requirements, and I am voting No on that basis.

• AdaStat

  Abstain50M ₳Rationale

  I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

• Chris-O

  No49.5M ₳No rationale
• PoolTool

  No47.6M ₳No rationale
• HISAI

  No42.9M ₳No rationale
• Patrick_Tobler

  Abstain40.1M ₳Rationale

  Due to my close affiliation with the Blockfrost Team I'm abstaining from this vote.

• drep1yffcjs0njfe...

  Yes38.1M ₳Rationale

  I voted YES on this proposal.

  Blockfrost is one of the few infrastructure services in the Cardano ecosystem that already provides clear real-world utility and is widely used by developers and applications today.

• Linda - Cryptofly

  No37.8M ₳No rationale
• Liqwid DAO

  Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
• MUEN

  Yes34.6M ₳Rationale

  この提案には具体的なマイルストーン（Q2〜Q4の成果物）と、Intersectによる厳格な監査体制が明記されているため、信頼性は高いですね。一企業にとは思いますが、早急な導入の際にこれはあるといいと思います。

• Socious

  Yes34.3M ₳Rationale

  Socious votes Yes. This 7,920,000 ADA (about $1.9M) proposal addresses a risk that gets little attention: the centralisation of Cardano's data-serving infrastructure. Today, running a service like Blockfrost means indexing the entire chain, which is expensive — and the cost will rise sharply as Leios scales throughput. That economics quietly prices out smaller operators and concentrates infrastructure around a few providers.

  Project Cayley ($1M of the ask) tackles this directly with decentralised slice indexing, letting SPOs and node operators index and serve only the portions of the chain they choose, plus a modular architecture that serves Cardano, Midnight, and Bitcoin through one API. The remaining $900K subsidises the free-tier infrastructure that Blockfrost has funded on its own since inception.

  Socious sees both halves as reasonable. Keeping data infrastructure decentralised as the chain scales is a public good worth funding, and a free tier that many builders depend on should not rest indefinitely on one company's balance sheet. With milestone-based administration through Intersect, Socious supports this proposal.

  ソーシャスは本提案に賛成します。本提案は7,920,000 ADA（約190万ドル）を投じ、あまり注目されないリスク、すなわちCardanoのデータ提供基盤の中央集権化に対処します。現状、Blockfrostのようなサービスを運用するにはチェーン全体のインデックス作成が必要で、その負担は大きく、Leiosによってスループットが拡大すれば費用はさらに急増します。この経済性が、小規模な事業者を静かに締め出し、基盤を一部の提供者に集中させています。

  要求額のうち100万ドルを充てるProject Cayleyは、この問題に正面から取り組みます。分散型のスライス・インデックスにより、SPOやノード運用者が自ら選んだチェーンの一部分だけをインデックスし提供できるようにし、さらにモジュール型の設計でCardano、Midnight、Bitcoinを一つのAPIから扱えるようにします。残る90万ドルは、Blockfrostが当初から自社で負担してきた無料枠の基盤を支えるものです。

  ソーシャスは双方とも妥当だと考えます。チェーンの拡大に合わせてデータ基盤を分散させ続けることは、資金を投じる価値のある公共財です。また、多くの開発者が頼る無料枠を、一社の財務に無期限に依存させ続けるべきではありません。Intersectによるマイルストーン管理も踏まえ、ソーシャスは本提案を支持します。

• HOSKY

  Abstain33.5M ₳Rationale

  Abstain. Cayley advances decentralization, but Blockfrost is a commercial service HOSKY already pays for. Treasury shouldn't subsidize a paid product's free tier.

  A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  Abstaining. Project Cayley has merit. Decentralized slice indexing lowers the barrier for SPOs and smaller operators to run data-serving infrastructure, which lines up with the HOSKY Cardano First decentralization pillar. The problem is the ask itself. $1M is for Cayley, the new product roadmap. $0.9M is an operational subsidy for the free tier that Blockfrost has funded out of commercial revenue since inception. Blockfrost is a commercial service. HOSKY pays for it. A service that's been covering its own free tier for years on commercial revenue can keep doing that, or reprice the free tier, or charge what the market supports. What it shouldn't do is fold a treasury subsidy into a commercial product's economics. The Cardano First framework reads the Economic Sustainability pillar as: reject financial models that depend on subsidy when there's a viable commercial path. Treasury-subsidized commercial infrastructure isn't sustainable, it's a dependency. And the precedent matters more than $0.9M. Fund one commercial provider's free tier and the same ask comes back from every other commercial provider next cycle. Cayley deserves to be funded on its merits as public-good architecture. The free-tier subsidy doesn't belong in the same envelope. Since the two are bundled at the vote, I won't vote No on the Cayley work itself, but I won't endorse the subsidy either. Abstain.

• Aichi/Tokai_DRep

  No31.4M ₳Rationale

  I am voting No on this proposal.

  Key reasons:

  • The proposal asks the Treasury to subsidize Blockfrost’s ongoing operational costs, creating a risky precedent for funding private infrastructure.
  • Funding a Bitcoin indexer with Cardano Treasury resources lacks clear justification and falls outside Cardano’s public‑goods mandate.
  • The proposal increases ecosystem dependence on a single private provider, which raises centralization and resilience concerns.
  • The requested amount is large, and the cost-effectiveness of the spending is not sufficiently demonstrated.

  For these reasons, I cannot support the proposal at this time.

• FIMI

  Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
• NEDSCAVE.IO

  No30.7M ₳No rationale
• Cerkoryn

  No27.9M ₳Rationale

  I am a big supporter of Blockfrost and have used their API many times myself, but this proposal is difficult to justify spending treasury funds on at this current time. Project Cayley is an interesting idea and the prospect of SPOs being able to serve data slices as an additional form of revenue is enticing, but I struggle to see them earning enough through this. Especially when there are several other competing API services already such as Koiois and Maestro, as well as many other locally-hosted tools that can connect to the Cardano network and serve data. I'd like to see Blockfrost succeed, but at this current point in time this proposal is a NO for me.

• TERA DRep

  No27.9M ₳No rationale
• Drep One

  Abstain27.5M ₳No rationale
• Florian Volery

  Yes26.3M ₳Rationale

  Blockfrost is the only indexer that we have on Cardano. The budget is acceptable for something that ca be used by all the applications built on Cardano.

• Blockjock (James Meidinger)

  Yes26.1M ₳Rationale

  Rationale — Project Cayley / Blockfrost Infrastructure
  Header
  Infrastructure does not scale quietly. If data access centralizes, everything built on top of it follows.
  Constitutional Gate
  Assessment: Pass, with structural concern
  The proposal supports ecosystem sustainability, scaling readiness, and infrastructure resilience. It includes defined deliverables, SLA targets, oversight, audits, and a treasury contract structure.
  The structural concern is that part of the request functions as operational subsidy for an existing service rather than purely new infrastructure investment.
  Decision Declaration
  Vote: YES — Necessary infrastructure, with subsidy risk noted.
  This is a defensive but important investment to reduce data-layer centralization before Cardano scales further.
  Core Rationale
  Project Cayley proposes decentralized slice indexing, expanded multi-chain data access across Cardano, Bitcoin, and Midnight, and continued support for Blockfrost’s free-tier infrastructure.
  The central issue is that a large share of free-tier API traffic depends on a single provider. That creates a centralization risk that may look convenient today but becomes fragile as Cardano scales.
  Strategic Alignment
  The proposal aligns with Leios readiness, infrastructure decentralization, builder enablement, and broader ecosystem resilience.
  It also creates a potential path for more SPOs and operators to participate as data providers, reducing reliance on one infrastructure path.
  Economic Impact
  The strongest economic value is indirect.
  Lower indexing costs can reduce the cost of building on Cardano, improve developer onboarding, and support more reliable application infrastructure.
  The limitation is that the proposal does not directly generate revenue or TVL. Its value is as an enablement layer.
  Execution Risk
  Key risks include long-term treasury subsidy expectations, limited competitive pressure if Blockfrost remains dominant, and uncertainty around adoption of decentralized slice indexing.
  These risks are partly mitigated by the decentralized design, SLA requirements, open infrastructure approach, and oversight structure.
  Accountability
  The proposal includes defined milestones, indexer and API deliverables, BTC support, a 99.9% uptime SLA, Intersect contract oversight, and audit requirements.
  These controls are appropriate, but decentralization outcomes should be measured clearly over time.
  Stablecoin Utilization
  The proposal does not appear to define a stablecoin hedging or disbursement strategy.
  That is a weakness. Infrastructure operations have predictable expenses, and converting an appropriate portion of received ADA into stablecoins would help protect runway, uptime commitments, staffing, and service continuity.
  The treasury disbursement process should also consider staged stablecoin conversion where ongoing operational costs require predictable purchasing power.
  Relying on ADA price stability is not a treasury strategy.
  End-User Lens
  For builders, this means cheaper and easier access to blockchain data.
  For SPOs and operators, it creates a potential role in decentralized data infrastructure.
  For users, it means more reliable applications and less dependence on a single company for critical data access.
  Conditions to Change Vote
  This rationale would materially change if the subsidy becomes open-ended, decentralization outcomes are not measurable, reliance on a single provider does not decrease, or operational costs become a recurring treasury dependency without a transition plan.

• Kyle Solomon

  No25.3M ₳No rationale
• wolf31o2 (Chris Gianelloni)

  Abstain23.5M ₳Rationale

  Bee and Marek have roles in PRAGMA, so I'm sitting this out. I'm excited about Cayley and want to see it funded. Perhaps a split proposal for only that would be more agreeable to DReps.

• Duc Tiger

  No22M ₳No rationale
• DINO

  No21.5M ₳No rationale
• Hephaestus Stake Pool [HEPHY]

  Abstain21.5M ₳No rationale
• Moonstake

  Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
• CTEC-Stake-Pool

  Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
• Chris [STR8] - Straightpool

  Yes19.9M ₳Rationale

  This is our chance to set a crypto wide standard of a decentralized solution to blockchain API services, which have a really strong tendency to centralize such as Infura or Alchemy on Ethereum, see:
  https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
  or listen to
  https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2047536342935249113?s=20

  With this proposal we will get our second serious partnerchain for Cardano next to Midnight, Blockforst unified decentralized data layer across blockchains.

  As an active IceBreaker for Blockfrost and an active user of the Blockfrost API, I support this proposal with a YES vote.