Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
216 DReps voted · 82 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL EVALUATION REPORT
- Proposal Name: Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
- Proposal Type: Treasury Withdrawal
- Requested Budget: ₳7,920,000 (Equivalent to ~$1,900,000)
- Allocation: $1,000,000 for infrastructure development (Project Cayley) & $900,000 for operational expense subsidies (OPEX).
- Proposal Overview
The proposal aims to address the data retrieval scalability challenges of the Cardano network, particularly in preparation for the Leios upgrade. The proposal consists of two core components:
- Project Cayley: Developing a decentralized "slice indexing" architecture, allowing SPOs and data providers to index only a specific portion of the blockchain instead of the whole, thereby reducing hardware costs.
- Blockfrost Operational Subsidy: Providing funds to maintain Blockfrost's free-tier API service – which currently handles approximately 90% of the free API traffic across the ecosystem.
- Analysis of Current Voting Data (On-chain Consensus)
Based on data from smart contracts, the proposal is facing widespread rejection from the community:
- DReps (Delegated Representatives): Approximately 80% of the active voting power has voted NO.
- Constitutional Committee: The consensus rate (YES) has only reached 31.25%, indicating that many members are also abstaining.
- Independent Evaluation
Pros:
- Solving a real-world problem: Cayley's "slice indexing" fragmented architecture is a strategic solution that lowers the barrier to entry for smaller SPOs as Cardano's data size expands.
- Short-term ecosystem protection: Supporting Blockfrost's expenses will ensure that thousands of dApps and developers using the free service do not experience operational disruptions.
Concerns:
- Structural bundling issue: Combining the R&D costs of a core technology (Project Cayley) with an operational expense subsidy (OPEX) for a private company into a single vote is coercive. Voters cannot approve the technological part without inadvertently approving the corporate subsidy.
- Centralization risk and unfair competition: Blockfrost currently operates on a commercial (freemium) model. Using community funds (Treasury) to pay for the operational expenses of a private enterprise creates an unequal competitive advantage over other providers (Maestro, Koios, Cardanoscan).
- Lack of return on investment (ROI) mechanism: The proposal lacks transparent metrics regarding Blockfrost's revenue, nor does it include a revenue-sharing mechanism or a loan conversion model with the community fund.
- Voting Decision and Recommendation
DECISION: NO
Summary Argument: We appreciate the technological vision of Project Cayley in preparing for the Leios era, as well as Blockfrost's historic contributions to the Cardano ecosystem. However, we are compelled to vote NO on this proposal due to the irrationality in the budget structuring. The community Treasury should not be utilized as a source of regular operational expense (OPEX) funding for a private business model, especially when this could distort the free market and stifle the growth of other competing RPC platforms.
We recommend that the author team withdraw and restructure this into two independent proposals: one proposal focusing entirely on building the open-source standard for Project Cayley, and a separate proposal for operational support that includes transparent financial terms (e.g., a loan or revenue-sharing)
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has a paid tier that could be used to cover the costs of Project Cayley.
Additionally, I do not believe the treasury should fund Blockfrost’s free tier, as it is in the best interests of the business to offer it (as a proportion will eventually convert into paying customers). If the pricing structure does not cover the costs of the free tier, then it should change, as relying on the treasury for continued funding for a revenue-generating business is not a sustainable long-term solution.
The treasury should be focused on funding initiatives that cannot generate business revenue, such as protocol upgrades and R&D. Catalyst, the Orion Fund, and other sources of funding exist for revenue-generating businesses.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is a critical piece of architecture for the cardano ecosystem
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳Rationale
IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.
✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain. - Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳Rationale
The proposal addresses a legitimate and strategically important infrastructure challenge for Cardano’s future scalability. As throughput increases under Leios, the cost and operational burden of full-chain indexing could become a major centralization pressure for data providers and developers. Project Cayley presents a credible approach to reducing those barriers through decentralized slice indexing, while also improving ecosystem resilience and affordability.
Blockfrost has become critical public infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem, providing free access relied upon by a large portion of developers and applications. Supporting continuity during the transition toward more decentralized indexing infrastructure is a reasonable treasury use case, particularly where service disruption could negatively impact ecosystem growth and developer experience.
The proposal also includes milestone-based delivery, third-party oversight, security audits, and refund conditions for undistributed funds, providing a reasonable governance and accountability framework for treasury expenditure.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Cardano will need affordable, scalable data infrastructure as throughput grows, and I reckon we can all agree that full-chain indexing can become an economic choke point. Sliced indexing sounds as attractive as sliced bread in this regard. On paper at least.
Unfortunately, the presented core value proposition is rather blurred. We're, yet again, looking at apples and oranges. Two very different things in one package: some ADA 4M for Project Cayley and roughly ADA 3.8M to subsidize Blockfrost’s free tier. Almost half of the ask is operating support for an existing provider. That matters. We must not use scarce treasury funds to backfill a business model simply because a service became popular!
Something else bothers me: We're told that ca. 90% of all free-tier Cardano API traffic flows through Blockfrost. Well done, but I don't think we should look at this as a triumph of sorts. To me, it's a concentration warning. And I'm worried to using treasury funds to subsidize that dominant gateway while being promised that decentralization will improve later. I do not like paying to deepen dependency first and decentralize second. Though I appreciate that the cabal might have a different opinion.
Granted, the proposed architecture enables access across Cardano, Midnight, and Bitcoin presumably through a unified API, which is a good thing. Yet, it's again the cross-ecosystem growth story that's entirely built on hope without offering a sharper line between Cardano treasury and broader COMMERCIAL platform expansion. I just do not see that line here. Sorry. There's little hard evidence behind claims such as “100+ Icebreakers,” “90% of free-tier traffic,” or “projected to save hundreds of thousands of dollars.” We're asked, again, to trust assertions that should have been substantiated. I for one am done with that!
If we want to fund this problem space responsibly, we should rather fund open standards, multiple independent implementations, or a narrower Cardano-only public-good indexing layer than subsidize one incumbent’s operating costs and strategic expansion!
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- No955.7K ₳Rationale
Data indexing providers are private entities and should use paid SaaS user models.
- No949.1K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged931.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Our role as a DRep demands that we prioritize user trust, security, and absolute accessibility across the blockchain network. Blockfrost has single-handedly subsidized the entry-level data requirements of this ecosystem for years, serving as the foundational entry point for nearly 90% of non-enterprise applications. Relying on a single private entity to continue carrying this operational deficit at a loss—especially during a generational scaling shift like Ouroboros Leios—is a severe architectural vulnerability. The requested budget of ₳7,920,000 represents a defensive, practical investment. It avoids a looming decentralization crisis by distributing indexing workloads directly to SPOs, while securing the immediate future of Cardano's most critical public-good gateway. Because this action builds long-term system resilience and protects the grassroots developer layer, a YES vote is completely warranted. Latin American Ecosystem Impact: This governance action acts as a critical economic safeguard for the Latin American Cardano community. Given that the vast majority of local builders, academic hubs, and early-stage Web3 initiatives operate within highly restrictive capital environments, access to a robust, zero-cost public API layer is the thin line between project survival and abandonment. Furthermore, the "SPO Icebreakers" framework introduces a massive opportunity for LatAm Stake Pool Operators; it creates an accessible technical path to earn secondary revenue through local slice indexing without forcing them to compete strictly in the capital-intensive global war for ADA delegation.
- Yes798.6K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has carried the cost of free developer access to Cardano data since day one. That is not sustainable as a private subsidy and the treasury should share it. Project Cayley also solves a real scaling problem. As Leios increases throughput, full chain indexing becomes increasingly expensive and concentrates infrastructure around fewer providers. Sliced indexing keeps data serving decentralized and affordable.
- YesChanged798.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
Subsidy disguised as infrastructure investment
~50% of the ask is effectively retroactive + forward operational subsidy. Treasury shouldn’t fund a private API provider’s free tier without clear ownership transfer or decentralization guarantees.
Centralization risk is real—and not solved here
Blockfrost already handles ~90% of free-tier traffic. This proposal entrenches that position in the short–medium term. “Cayley” is a future promise, not current decentralization.
Weak KPI alignment
No direct impact on TVL or transactions. This is infra plumbing with indirect effects → lower priority vs L2, Plutus, or dev tooling.
Misaligned incentives
If Blockfrost’s business model is unsustainable, the solution is pricing evolution—not treasury dependency. This creates moral hazard for other infra providers.
Cayley is the only valuable part—and it’s underweighted
The actual innovation (slice indexing) is ~40% of budget. That part is interesting and probably worth funding separately.What would change my vote to YES:
Remove operational subsidy entirely
Fund only Cayley (₳3–4M range)
Require open standard + multiple provider adoption from day 1
Explicit path to reducing Blockfrost dominance (not preserving it)Bottom line:
This is strategically correct problem framing (data infra scaling), but poorly structured economically. You don’t want treasury to become AWS for one dominant provider. - No794.5K ₳Rationale
You own it, you generate revenue for it, you maintain it. Simple! This isn't what Treasury was meant for.
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- No759K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged705.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
I voted NO because Blockfrost has already received significant Treasury funding and operates as a private business with paid services. The proposal lacks transparency on financial sustainability and does not justify why additional subsidies are needed. Cardano already has multiple infrastructure providers, including Maestro, Cardanoscan, and decentralized options like Koios. Funding one provider risks centralization and unfair competitive advantages. I also disagree with bundling Project Cayley development and Blockfrost operational funding into a single vote instead of evaluating them separately so we can better utilize and optimize our limited treasury.
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
No
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
Total ask: ₳7,916,666 Product, Engineering & R&D: ₳3,333,333 = 42.1% Security Audits: ₳833,333 = 10.5% Ops & Infrastructure: ₳3,750,000 = 47.4% Hybrid proposal: $800K new development + ~$900K operational + $200K security audits.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting yes because Blockfrost is not aspirational infrastructure alone, it's operational infrastructure the ecosystem already depends on, serving approximately 90% of all free-tier API traffic since day one. Project Cayley addresses a real and compounding problem: as Leios scales Cardano throughput, full-chain indexing costs will grow exponentially, potentially pricing smaller operators out of data infrastructure entirely. Decentralized slice indexing is enabling SPOs to participate without bearing the full indexing cost. This is the architecturally correct response to that scaling constraint. That alone in my mind justifies this proposal.
Two concerns are worth naming. First, the "fair share" framing for the $900,000 operational subsidy is only partly accurate. The Blockfrost free tier was a deliberate commercial strategy to lower barriers, acquire developers, convert them to paid tiers and it worked. The treasury is being asked to retroactively subsidize what was also a customer acquisition investment. I don't think that disqualifies the ask, because the public goods component is real: 90% of ecosystem developers rely on this service, and continuity matters. But the framing should be honest about the dual nature rather than presenting it as pure ecosystem altruism. Second, the Bitcoin indexer in Milestone 5 is the least defensible component. Cardano treasury funds extending data infrastructure to Bitcoin expands Blockfrost's commercial addressable market more directly than it advances Cardano ecosystem priorities. The "unified data layer" argument exists, but it's thin justification for Cardano treasury expenditure. I'd rather see that scope bounded to Cardano-first deliverables.
At ₳7,916,666 (~$1.9M at $0.24), with standard milestone-based Intersect governance, a prior delivery record of 88% drawdown, and an operational subsidy that keeps critical free-tier access alive while Cayley matures, the ask is proportionate. The open-source status of the Cayley/Mandoline codebase is not stated and should be, SPO participation in data infrastructure is only meaningful if the architecture is open. That gap doesn't change my vote, but it should be addressed in the next submission or clarified publicly before mainnet launch. - No605.7K ₳Rationale
🚫 MY VOTE IS NO. I REJECT THIS PROPOSAL
Cardano has a vote to allocate ₳7,920,000 from the treasury for Blockfrost and Project Cayley.
Formally, this is presented as infrastructure development, data indexing, and support for free API access for developers.
But for me, the essence is simple:
they are coming to the treasury for money again.
Cardano already has infrastructure solutions for data access. There is already Blockfrost, Koios, cardano-db-sync, Ogmios, Kupo, and other tools.
Now they want to take money from the common treasury again to support a separate infrastructure layer and fund its development.
I am not against Cardano development.
I am against turning the treasury into a feeding system for constant requests.₳7.92 million is not a small amount.
This is community money.
This is the resource of the whole ecosystem.
And every request like this must pass a strict filter.My position is simple:
first, they should prove by themselves that the model is sustainable, necessary, and does not create dependence on one provider.
Only after that can we talk about the treasury.
Right now, my vote is:
NO / REJECT
Cardano must be built not on constant requests to the treasury, but on strong, sustainable, and independent infrastructure.
Otherwise, this is no longer decentralization.
It becomes a regular grant system where some build, and others constantly pay.I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. - Optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr More details here https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
🚀 COURSE “LEDGER COLD CRYPTO WALLET” | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 CLOSED VIP CHAT PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES AND LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/📌 Note: This post is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not contain calls for action, protests, or violation of the law. Everything stated is the author’s personal reflection.
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
We're going for #1. Build, Build, Build, Maintain, Index!
- No535.2K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is a private label service, It does not make any sense funding via the treasury.
The idea of having a truly verifiable and distributed query layer for Cardano to complete the e2e is very romantic.
We
A) have a plethora of query standards currently (Koios, UTXOrpc, Blockfrost, oura, koios etc etx)
B) IOG is already a point of centralization, concentrating more power to them by assisting Blockfrost cementing their self's as THE api for wallets and dAps not a good strategic move - No533.9K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is a self sustaining Entity and can make due without treasury compensation ATM. Blockfrost does great work and will continue to be praised for the work they do but with the fiscal responsibility aspect of the Cardano Treasury they will be able to continue to operate without funding
- Yes527.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is one of those things people only remember exists when it breaks. Which is exactly how infrastructure should work.
Project Cayley actually solves a real scaling problem. Right now, if you want to participate seriously in data-serving infrastructure, you basically need to index the whole damn chain even if you only care about a slice of it. That gets worse with Leios. It becomes expensive, stupid, and centralizing. Richer operators survive, smaller ones get politely escorted out of decentralization.Cayley’s sliced indexing is the smart part. Let operators choose which parts of the chain they index instead of forcing everyone to eat the entire buffet just to get one plate of rice. Lower infra costs, more operators, better decentralization. Revolutionary concept: don’t make things unnecessarily miserable.
Now let’s talk about the part people will scream about: the $900k operational subsidy.Honestly? Fair.
For years, Blockfrost has been subsidizing the ecosystem by carrying the free tier themselves while everyone happily consumed it like it was grown naturally on trees. We love decentralization until the invoice arrives. If the ecosystem depends on a public good, the ecosystem should help pay for it. Pretending otherwise is just freeloading with philosophical branding.
And no, I do not think “but it’s a company” is a serious argument by itself. If a private company is providing public infrastructure at ecosystem scale, the question is not whether they are a company. The question is whether the value delivered justifies treasury participation. In this case, yes.
The budget is also sane. ₳7.92M for both next-gen indexing architecture and maintaining critical free-tier infrastructure is far less offensive than some proposals asking for venture-capital money to fund speculative ego projects and a dream journal. This one has clear deliverables, uptime SLAs, milestone-based disbursement, refunds for undisbursed funds, and actual measurable outcomes. Beautiful. Adults are in the room.
My only caution is this: treasury should not become Blockfrost’s permanent landlord. Subsidizing transition and ecosystem-critical continuity is fine. Creating endless dependency is not. Cayley needs to genuinely decentralize access and reduce long-term concentration, not become a prettier justification for the same dependency problem.
But today, this is still a yes. - No499K ₳Rationale
- Yes487.7K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged479.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- No442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.7K ₳No rationale
- No414.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - No383K ₳No rationale