Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
216 DReps voted · 82 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
I’m voting NO because this request combines two fundamentally different things into one treasury withdrawal: “new infrastructure build-out” and an ongoing operational subsidy model. Even if both are individually arguable, bundling forces an all-or-nothing decision and prevents governance from approving the forward-looking component while rejecting the subsidy component, which is not acceptable at multi-million-ADA scale. Treasury subsidization of an existing service also requires exceptional transparency: independently verifiable justification for dependency claims, a clear transition plan away from recurring subsidy, and a cost model that can be audited and benchmarked. Process penalty: bypassing the Intersect budget mechanism undermines price discovery and comparability and should not become normal for large infrastructure and operations spends.
- No16.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on governance action 73e171a4c0730b4b59ecae271ab89f12a9d56360b02920e1f95107dbdc1d6762#7.
I have had discussions in the past, and have a reasonable expectation, of Sundae Labs being an external vendor that could help with the delivery of this proposal. Thus, I must abstain.
That being said, I believe the proposal is a good one, with the caveat that I am forced to mentally penalize it due to being an omnibus proposal.
It funds public good infrastructure in the form of Project Cayley and the blockfrost free tier.
Lack of public funding for the would force blockfrost to raise prices on other customers to subsidize the free tier, or remove the free tier entirely. Both, in my opinion, would cause more than the $900k asked for. Additionally, the $900k cost is within a reasonable range, if on the higher end of the spectrum, for what such infrastructure and staff are likely to cost.
With regards to Ceyley, I believe the proposed indexing structure is a good one, and directly addresses the need for the first category of public spending. By reducing infrastructure costs, Blockfrost makes the free tier more sustainable and self funding, and more decentralized and robust.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA Rationale
RCADA votes ABSTAIN on the Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing Treasury Withdrawal proposal.
RCADA recognises Blockfrost as important infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem. Many applications, wallets, services, developers, and smaller projects benefit from reliable, low-friction access to Cardano data. The free tier has helped make the ecosystem richer by lowering barriers to experimentation and development, and RCADA appreciates the work Blockfrost has done over several years to provide that access.
RCADA also sees merit in Project Cayley. As Cardano scales, especially with future throughput improvements such as Leios, full-chain indexing may become increasingly expensive. A decentralised slice-indexing architecture could reduce the burden on operators, allow more SPOs and node operators to participate in data-serving infrastructure, and help avoid concentration of the data layer around only a few large providers. That direction is aligned with Cardano’s decentralisation and resilience goals.
However, this proposal combines two distinct elements: funding next-generation decentralised indexing through Project Cayley, and providing an operational subsidy for Blockfrost’s free-tier infrastructure. The proposal allocates approximately $1,000,000 to Project Cayley and approximately $900,000 to maintaining the free-tier infrastructure, with a total Treasury ask of ₳7,916,666.
RCADA does not dismiss the value of the free tier. Free or low-cost access to blockchain data can be a genuine ecosystem public good, especially for new builders, small teams, wallets, tooling providers, and community services. The difficult question is not whether such access should exist, but how it should be funded fairly, sustainably, and without creating unhealthy dependency or capture risk.
At this stage, RCADA is not fully satisfied that the proposal resolves those questions. Treasury support for a private infrastructure provider’s operational free tier may be justified in some circumstances, but it requires a clear framework. That framework should ideally include independent usage verification, transparent cost attribution, a time-limited bridge rationale, a long-term sustainability plan, and a clear distinction between public-good infrastructure and commercial business operations.
RCADA also discloses that we currently participate in Blockfrost’s API service provision and receive income from that activity. As a relatively small stake pool, this income stream is meaningful. Because of this relationship, we believe it is appropriate to avoid casting a direct YES vote on a Treasury proposal that could be perceived as supporting an infrastructure model from which RCADA benefits. Our abstention reflects both governance caution and conflict-of-interest transparency.
This should not be read as opposition to Blockfrost or Project Cayley. RCADA appreciates Blockfrost’s contribution and believes decentralised indexing is an important area for Cardano’s future. We would welcome future proposals that further separate public-good infrastructure development from commercial operational subsidy, provide clearer independent metrics for free-tier usage, and explore fairer long-term funding models.
Possible future models could include time-limited bridge funding while decentralised infrastructure matures, public-good service contracts with measurable SLAs, multi-provider subsidy mechanisms, matched funding between Treasury and commercial revenue, usage-based support for verified community traffic, or repayment/revenue-sharing structures where Treasury funding strengthens a commercial service.
RCADA believes the Cardano ecosystem needs sustainable, reliable, and decentralised data access. We also believe Treasury funding should be structured carefully where public infrastructure overlaps with private commercial services.
For these reasons, RCADA votes ABSTAIN. We recognise the value of Blockfrost and Project Cayley, but due to RCADA’s current Blockfrost API-service relationship and unresolved questions around subsidy precedent, commercial sustainability, independent usage verification, and fair long-term funding, we cannot fully endorse the proposal as presented.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has provided free API access to the Cardano blockchain since its first day of operation, absorbing 100% of that infrastructure cost without ever passing it on to users. Today, it serves approximately 90% of all free-tier API traffic, making it the de facto data access layer for a significant portion of our ecosystem's builders and applications. We believe this critical service cannot face sudden disruption or paywalls, which is why securing the community free tier via the requested operational subsidy is a protective necessity to keep this service running, maintained, and freely accessible while decentralized infrastructure matures.
Our support for this proposal is deeply rooted in the technical realities of Cardano's planned scalability under Project Leios. As Leios scales Cardano throughput, the raw and indexed data growth of the Cardano blockchain could swell significantly, which would make the cost of full-chain indexing increasingly prohibitive for individual developers and small-scale operators. This proposal aims to address this bottleneck directly by introducing decentralized slice indexing. We believe this approach represents exactly what the ecosystem should pursue, as it could empower SPOs and other Cardano node operators of all sizes to actively participate in data-serving infrastructure without the burden of maintaining a massive full-dataset index. By allowing operators to process optimized data slices, this initiative is projected to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure costs across our ecosystem, which would keep long-term decentralization economically viable at scale. Furthermore, it could open new avenues for SPOs by onboarding them as Icebreakers, giving them an opportunity for a new economically viable role as data providers.
We recognize that some viewpoints look cautiously at Milestone 5, which extends this indexing infrastructure to support Bitcoin alongside Cardano. However, we believe that Cayley's modular multi-chain architecture could be highly strategic, as it is designed to position Cardano infrastructure as a unified data layer across major blockchains. This cross-chain expansion should reduce integration time and provide a unified API across chains, which could broaden our addressable market and lower the barrier for outside developers to bring their talent and real-world utility over to the Cardano network. Over a five-year horizon, if network throughput climbs up to 350 TxkB/s , managing raw monthly growth of up to ~920 GB and indexed growth of up to ~9.20 TB should become entirely manageable through sliced indexing rather than crushing local operations under a centralizing data wall. This would directly support long-term ecosystem sustainability and should ensure our data layer could scale gracefully without sacrificing the decentralization we fundamentally stand for.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged10.4M ₳Rationale
Updating rationale (reason from changing NO to ABSTAIN to NO):
Blockfrost: Cardano Treasury should not be used to subsidize a profitable private company without a clear public return.
We've already seen other private entities held to a different standard. In previous rounds, projects like Snek were pushed toward a loan structure because they were considered a private company. So why is Blockfrost being treated differently?
Blockfrost is also being framed by some as "critical infrastructure." I don't agree with that characterization.
Cardano builders use many alternatives: Maestro, Koios, Dandelion, Cardanoscan API, Iagon Insights, Dolos, Ogmios, Yaci Store and others. This is not a one-provider ecosystem
I even ran a builder poll. At the time of writing, the results were:
- 8% use Blockfrost paid
- 8% use Blockfrost free tier
- 59% use multiple API tools
- 25% don't use Blockfrost at all
That does not support the narrative that Blockfrost is some irreplaceable backbone for Cardano.
Another issue - the proposal leaned on claims around usage and traffic concentration, including the idea that ~90% of traffic flows through Blockfrost. That claim was later deleted after basic questions were asked. The reality is simple - there is no credible public way to verify how many dapps depend on Blockfrost or what percentage of ecosystem traffic runs through it.
That makes the "critical infrastructure" argument look more like marketing than governance-grade evidence
If Treasury funds a private company, there should be a clear benefit flowing back to Treasury and the ecosystem. Equity, tokens, revenue share, hard guarantees, something tangible. We cannot keep socializing cost while privatizing upside
And if the standard is that ecosystem builders should give something back, then that standard should apply equally to EVERYONE - not only to some teams while exceptions are made for companies with the right connections.
We need consistent rules, evidence based claims, and better stewardship of Treasury
That's why I voted NO on Blockfrost.
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
Blockfrost is a profitable company. During previous voting rounds, Snek was made to take a loan instead of grant because it was considered as a 'private company'
Blockfrost is falsely sold by others as critical infrastructure, including from IOG associated members like Phil (who also owns Midgard). Blockfrost is NOT widely used by builders and there are many alternatives that developers use: Maestro, Koios, Dandelion, Cardanoscan API, Iagon Insights, Dolos, Ogmios, Yaci store. I conducted a Cardano builder poll, as of this msg, the poll stands at: 8% use paid subscription on Blockfrost, 8% use free tier on Blockfrost (which is being asked for in this proposal), 59% use multiple API tools (mentioned earlier), 25% DON'T user Blockfrost. Blockfrost also claimed that 90% of the traffic goes through it's service (the claim was later deleted after I asked them some simple questions). The fact is there is no way to know how many dapps or the % of people using Blockfrost and no way to claim that traffic is going through Blockfrost. This is more a marketing stunt , rather than based on facts. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be funding projects that are profitable and don't give anything back to the treasury. Charles has also stated that projects should give up equity and tokens (when it comes to ecosystem builders), yet this standard is not applied to companies he owns.No3mo agoSuperseded
Blockfrost is a profitable company. During previous voting rounds, Snek was made to take a loan instead of grant because it was considered as a 'private company'
Blockfrost is falsely sold by others as critical infrastructure, including from IOG associated members like Phil (who also owns Midgard). Blockfrost is NOT widely used by builders and there are many alternatives that developers use: Maestro, Koios, Dandelion, Cardanoscan API, Iagon Insights, Dolos, Ogmios, Yaci store. I conducted a Cardano builder poll, as of this msg, the poll stands at: 8% use paid subscription on Blockfrost, 8% use free tier on Blockfrost (which is being asked for in this proposal), 59% use multiple API tools (mentioned earlier), 25% DON'T user Blockfrost. Blockfrost also claimed that 90% of the traffic goes through it's service (the claim was later deleted after I asked them some simple questions). The fact is there is no way to know how many dapps or the % of people using Blockfrost and no way to claim that traffic is going through Blockfrost. This is more a marketing stunt , rather than based on facts. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be funding projects that are profitable and don't give anything back to the treasury. Charles has also stated that projects should give up equity and tokens (when it comes to ecosystem builders), yet this standard is not applied to companies he owns. - No9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案を棄権します。BlockfrostがこれまでCardanoエコシステムに対して果たしてきた貢献や、無料インフラ提供を長期間継続してきた点については高く評価しています。また、Leios時代に向けてデータインフラやインデックス化コストの課題が重要になるという問題提起についても理解しています。一方で、本提案には既存Blockfrostインフラ維持に対する運用補助金としての性質が強く含まれており、エコシステムが単一データプロバイダーへ大きく依存している現状については、長期的な分散化の観点から慎重に見る必要があると考えています。そのため、本提案については今回は棄権します。\n\nI abstain from this proposal. I highly appreciate the contributions Blockfrost has made to the Cardano ecosystem and its long-term commitment to providing free infrastructure services. I also understand the concern that data infrastructure and indexing costs will become increasingly important challenges in the Leios era. On the other hand, this proposal largely functions as an operational subsidy for maintaining the existing Blockfrost infrastructure, and I believe the current situation in which the ecosystem relies heavily on a single data provider should be viewed cautiously from the perspective of long-term decentralization. For these reasons, I have decided to abstain from this proposal.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
This proposal includes two components: : Project Cayley ($1,000,000) to build the next-generation indexing architecture, and an operational subsidy ($900,000) to maintain the free-tier infrastructure that Blockfrost has funded entirely on its own since inception.
Project Cayley is the more interesting one for me. However, I would prefer to see this as a proposal in 2027, when Leios becomes a reality. Cardano mainnet is still not overloaded and Project Cayley sounds like it could also be realized in 2027, after we see Leios hit mainnet and how it functions in a real-life scenario.
As regards the free-tier infrastructure - it may now be subsidizing commercial projects that cannot survive on their own. Shifting the subsidy to the Treasury - for many projects that cannot survive is not something I would support. In short, I would reconsider my current NO vote on Project Cayley if it were resubmitted in 2027, based on the Leios reality we have then.
- Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes.
I recognize the importance of this infrastructure and the direction it is heading. Project Cayley, in particular, represents a forward-looking step toward enabling a more scalable and potentially more distributed data layer as the network evolves.
That said, it’s important to be clear: this enables a path toward decentralization, but it does not deliver it on its own. Continued funding in this category should be tied to tangible progress toward a more open, multi-provider indexing ecosystem—not ongoing reliance on a single dominant provider.
I support enabling this step, but I do not want to see repeated funding requests without clearer movement in that direction. Either we evolve toward a more distributed model, or we need to be explicit about the long-term cost of maintaining centralized infrastructure. I would prefer we move toward the former.
- No5.8M ₳Rationale
- 블록프로스트 사용자로써 블록프로스트의 생태계에서 중요도와 기여도는 충분히 이해함
- 이런 류의 제안은 선 지급요청, 추후 환급보다는 아래 내용을 제안함
-- 이번 시즌에 다음 시즌 동안의 예상운영비용을 산정
-- 이번 시즌에 다음 시즌 예상운영비용의 일부 (30%정도) 이번 시즌에 요청
-- 다음 시즌에 실제 사용비용을 실제 증빙과 함께 요청
하는 프로세스를 따르면 재무부자금요청에 대한 신뢰도가 올라갈것으로 판단함
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Voting YES. Two coupled components addressing the same underlying problem from opposite directions. Project Cayley introduces decentralised slice indexing - allowing SPOs and node operators to choose which portions of the chain they index and serve, rather than requiring full-chain indexing for every data provider. The economic case scales with Leios: at 350 TxkB/s throughput, full-chain indexing costs grow to ~$7,871 per indexer per year, multiplied across hundreds of operators. Sliced indexing keeps decentralisation economically viable as the chain scales, which is a structural problem worth solving now rather than after Leios mainnet activation makes it expensive. The multi-chain architecture extending to Bitcoin alongside Cardano is well-aligned with the broader IO 2026 batch direction, particularly Pogun's Bitcoin DeFi work.
The operational subsidy is the more philosophically interesting half. Blockfrost has subsidised approximately 90% of free-tier Cardano API traffic from its own balance sheet since inception - a real public-goods contribution that the ecosystem has benefited from without ever paying for. Asking the treasury to share that cost is fair recognition that community infrastructure is best sustained as shared responsibility, and the 99.9% uptime SLA tied to quarterly disbursement gates is the right accountability structure. Same gold-standard treasury safeguards as the rest of the batch.
One caveat worth naming: the 90% free-tier traffic concentration through a single provider is itself the centralisation problem that Cayley is being funded to address. Subsidising the incumbent free tier while building the decentralised replacement is the right transitional move, but the long-term ecosystem health goal must be a genuinely distributed indexing layer where no single provider serves 90% of anything. The Blockfrost commitment to rework its commercial model so future pricing does not create barriers or negative dependencies for the ecosystem is the right signal; delivery on that commitment will matter as much as delivery on Cayley itself.
Peter Horsfall - Independent DRep, Oceania.
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes NO on Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing.
We recognize the value of Blockfrost and the ambition behind Project Cayley. Better indexing infrastructure will matter even more as Cardano scales, and the proposal correctly identifies a real problem around data access and infrastructure costs. The proposal asks for ₳7.92M, split between Project Cayley and an operational subsidy for Blockfrost’s free-tier infrastructure.
However, we are not comfortable using treasury funds to subsidize a commercial API provider in a competitive market. Blockfrost is valuable, but it is not the only data access solution in the ecosystem, and treasury support should avoid reinforcing vendor dependency where alternatives exist.
We would be more open to supporting a narrower, clearly open, ecosystem-owned indexing standard or public-good component. In its current form, we vote NO. - No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳Rationale
Important if Cardano does really take off.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
We cannot afford for our primary service provider to underperform. Through this funding, we recognize Blockfrost’s invaluable contribution in providing free API services to developers for years and fully support its continued evolution to meet the demands of the next phase, particularly with the upcoming Leios upgrade.
==========================================
In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano. - Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing" (gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx), pois entendemos que ela trata de uma infraestrutura essencial para o ecossistema Cardano. O Blockfrost já sustenta uma parte relevante do acesso gratuito a dados da rede, enquanto o Project Cayley propõe uma evolução importante ao reduzir a necessidade de indexação completa da blockchain, tornando a operação mais acessível, descentralizada e preparada para o crescimento esperado com o Leios. Embora o valor solicitado seja significativo, de ₳7.916.666, o orçamento nos parece proporcional ao impacto pretendido, especialmente por combinar desenvolvimento de infraestrutura de longo prazo com a manutenção de um serviço já amplamente utilizado pela comunidade. Também consideramos positivos os mecanismos de controle previstos: entregas organizadas por marcos trimestrais, comprovação de SLA de 99,9%, aceite de entregas, supervisão por terceiros, gestão via smart contracts, relatórios públicos e devolução de recursos não utilizados. Esses elementos tornam o progresso mensurável e conferem maior transparência ao uso dos recursos.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing" (gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx), because we understand that it addresses essential infrastructure for the Cardano ecosystem. Blockfrost already supports a significant share of free access to network data, while Project Cayley proposes an important evolution by reducing the need for full blockchain indexing, making operations more accessible, decentralized, and prepared for the expected growth with Leios. Although the requested amount is significant, totaling ₳7,916,666, the budget appears proportional to the intended impact, especially as it combines long-term infrastructure development with the maintenance of a service already widely used by the community. We also view the proposed control mechanisms positively: deliverables organized by quarterly milestones, proof of 99.9% SLA, deliverable acceptance, third-party oversight, smart contract-based management, public reporting, and the return of unused funds. These elements make progress measurable and provide greater transparency in the use of resources. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
The governance aspects of continuing to fund a commercial product through multiple rounds overrides the project value.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I do not currently support this proposal.
This is not because Blockfrost lacks technical competence or ecosystem usefulness. Reliable indexing and query infrastructure are clearly important components of the Cardano application stack, and Blockfrost has already demonstrated meaningful operational execution within the ecosystem.
My concerns are primarily institutional and governance-related.
The proposal combines maintenance, operational support, and next-generation infrastructure development into a single bundled request, reducing governance precision and making it difficult to evaluate which portions are genuine public-goods infrastructure versus ongoing platform subsidy.
More importantly, I am concerned about treasury-funded concentration around a commercially positioned middleware provider in an area where alternative providers and architectures already exist. Indexing infrastructure is a major hidden centralization surface across the crypto industry, and treasury funding risks unintentionally reinforcing dependency on a dominant ecosystem intermediary.
I was also not persuaded by framing around the free tier being funded “entirely on their own" as previous funding rounds were partially based on commitment to a free tier. Treasury funding remains fungible support for the broader organization and operational stack, and governance should evaluate the full economic effect of subsidy rather than isolated cost categories.
There is a legitimate argument that portions of Cardano’s infrastructure ecosystem remain under-monetized and that some shared infrastructure may require ecosystem support during ecosystem maturation. However, if treasury is to intervene in this area, I would strongly prefer approaches that emphasize open standards, interoperability, modular infrastructure, and competitive neutrality rather than reinforcing a specific provider position.
Overall, I believe the proposal raises too many concerns around vendor concentration, treasury appropriateness, and operational subsidy precedent relative to its current structure.
- Abstain3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
I have to vote NO on this proposal in its current form. This proposal has several misleading and false statements regarding Blockfrost:
“an operational subsidy ($900,000) to maintain the free-tier infrastructure that Blockfrost has funded entirely on its own since inception.”
“Since its first day of operation, Blockfrost has provided free API access to the Cardano blockchain for developers and projects across the ecosystem — absorbing 100% of the infrastructure cost of that free tier without ever passing it on to users.”
Blockfrost has been funded multiple times through Project Catalyst community funding under the ownership of Five Binaries. Now after being purchased by IOG, funding is again being requested under the guise of “doing the work for free”.
Blockfrost is a for profit system, and if the Cardano treasury is continued to be expected to pay for its support, then I suggest ownership of Blockfrost be transferred to the Cardano ecosystem as compensation for continued funding.
Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.
If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.
I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost provides infrastructure and tooling that is widely used by the Cardano ecosystem. Albeit I understand the need for funding Leios preparedness, I feel that this proposal overall is out of touch with the general state and direction of the ecosystem. I would be more inclined to consider this proposal if it was fully focused on Cardano/Leios. There are parts in the proposal about Bitcoin indexing and other chains which I feel are not relevant at the moment.
Overall, I think this proposal is lacking details around exact FTE costs, build costs around Caylay, how the grant makes the product free ($900,000 quoted, would love to see actual data on how many accounts, what the costs would of been, overall ecosystem savings), and hardly any alignment with the 2030 main KPIs(would be satisfied with a list of projects who use it, can quantify impact easier).
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.6M ₳Rationale
BlockfrostはCardano開発者にとって重要なデータアクセス基盤であり、Project Cayleyによる分散型スライス・インデックスは、Leios時代に向けて不可欠な取り組みだと考えます。ブロックチェーン本体が分散していても、DAppやウォレットがチェーンデータを取得する入口が少数のAPI・インデックス事業者に集中すれば、実際の利用体験は再び中央集権化してしまいます。Project Cayleyは、この「Web3がAPI層で再集権化する問題」に対するCardano側の回答であり、SPOやノード運用者がデータ提供に参加できる分散型データ基盤を整備する意義は大きいです。一方で、本提案は総額約₳7.92Mのうち47.4%がOps & Infrastructureに充てられており、既存free tier維持への運営補助色が強い点には懸念があります。したがって、今後は商業モデルとの線引き、分散化KPI、SPO参加実績を明確にすることを条件として、本提案に賛成します。
I recognize Blockfrost as important data access infrastructure for Cardano developers, and I see Project Cayley’s decentralized slice indexing as essential for the Leios era. Even if the blockchain itself is decentralized, the user experience can recentralize if DApps and wallets rely on only a few API and indexing providers to access chain data. Project Cayley is Cardano’s answer to this risk, enabling SPOs and node operators to participate in decentralized data-serving infrastructure.
At the same time, I remain concerned that 47.4% of the approximately ₳7.92M request is allocated to Ops & Infrastructure, giving the proposal a partial operational-subsidy character for the existing free tier. For this reason, I support this proposal while expecting clearer separation from the long-term commercial model, measurable decentralization KPIs, and evidence of SPO/operator participation.
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
BlockfrostはCardano開発者にとって重要なデータアクセス基盤であり、Project Cayleyによる分散型スライス・インデックスもLeios時代に向けた有用な取り組みです。一方で、本提案は総額約₳7.92Mのうち、47.4%にあたる約₳3.75M、約90万ドルがOps & Infrastructureに充てられており、既存free tier維持の運営補助色が強いと見ています。公共財性は認めますが、Treasuryが民間サービスの運営費をどこまで負担すべきか、また商業モデルとの整理に不確実性が残るため、今回はAbstainとします。
I recognize Blockfrost as important data access infrastructure for Cardano developers, and I see Project Cayley’s decentralized slice indexing as a useful initiative for the Leios era. However, this proposal requests about ₳7.92M, of which 47.4% — around ₳3.75M, or about $900,000 — is allocated to Ops & Infrastructure. This makes the proposal feel partly like an operational subsidy for the existing free tier. While I acknowledge its public-good value, I remain cautious about how far the Treasury should fund the operating costs of a private service, and about the unresolved relationship with its long-term commercial model. For these reasons, I choose to Abstain.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
I like blockfrost but not sure about the 'pay for everyone to do maintenance' plan
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing proposal, not because I believe Blockfrost lacks value to the Cardano ecosystem, but because I believe Cardano governance now needs to evolve toward a more sustainable and sophisticated treasury funding model for commercially viable infrastructure providers.
Blockfrost is clearly important ecosystem infrastructure. Many developers, wallets, applications and services rely on its APIs and indexing capabilities, and I recognise the strategic value of the proposed next-generation indexing work.
However, Blockfrost is also an operational commercial business with monetisable products, existing customers and a credible path toward long-term commercial sustainability.
As DReps, we are now operating under meaningful Net Change Limit constraints, with approximately 13 months remaining in the current NCL window and many competing infrastructure, adoption and research proposals still seeking treasury funding.
Because of this, I believe Cardano governance should begin distinguishing more clearly between:
1 pure public goods,
2 ecosystem-critical open infrastructure,
3 and commercially monetisable ecosystem businesses.In cases where treasury funding is used to accelerate commercial infrastructure providers, I believe future proposals should increasingly explore:
1 repayment mechanisms,
2 treasury revenue-sharing,
3 ecosystem pricing guarantees,
4 or other models that allow the Cardano treasury and community to participate in the upside created by treasury-funded ecosystem growth.I do not believe perpetual operational subsidy through treasury withdrawals should become the default model for commercially viable infrastructure businesses.
This vote is therefore not a rejection of Blockfrost’s technical contributions or ecosystem importance. It is a reflection of my broader view that Cardano governance is maturing from simple grant distribution toward more disciplined treasury stewardship and long-term capital allocation thinking.
I would welcome a revised proposal structure in the future that incorporates stronger treasury-alignment mechanisms alongside the important infrastructure work being proposed.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale