Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
216 DReps voted · 82 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes323.2K ₳No rationale
- No320.4K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this bundled proposal. While Project Cayley is a 'must-have', I cannot support public subsidization of a private, for-profit business without clear revenue-sharing, strict transparency between free and premium tiers, or a neutral infrastructure fund.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
To be absolutely clear, I fully support Project Cayley. It is critical infrastructure. Without sliced indexing, the upcoming Leios upgrade will make data access far too expensive, which would inadvertently force network centralization. Furthermore, I have mixed feelings regarding Blockfrost because I highly value the services they have historically provided to our community. I have used their free tier myself, and I fundamentally agree with the logic that "if we use it, we should fund it".
However, as a DRep committed to responsible and justifiable treasury spending, I must vote NO on this specific implementation due to the following critical concerns:
- The Bundling Problem: This proposal tangles together public infrastructure (Project Cayley, which is absolutely needed for our decentralization) with the operational funding of a private business. These should be separate conversations.
- Privatizing Profits, Socializing Costs: We must examine Blockfrost’s revenue model and cost structure to validate their needs. Blockfrost is a private, for-profit company, and while generating profit is entirely welcomed, asking for treasury subsidies changes the dynamic. To use an analogy from the "legacy" world: when banks collapse, governments (the taxpayers) often step in to bail them out. The absolute minimum expectation in those scenarios is that the public receives a stake or share in the institution. If we expect those standards in the legacy world, we should demand even higher standards of transparency and co-ownership in Web3. If we share the costs, we should share the revenues.
- Market Distortion & Centralization: By funding a specific commercial business, we are essentially picking winners and losers at the protocol level. What happens to competitors like Koios? We risk distorting the free market, which leaves other companies struggling to survive unless they also ask for funding. Both outcomes are detrimental: we either end up funding every commercial indexing business out there, or we drive competitors to extinction, resulting in a centralized monopoly.
- Lack of Financial Segregation: We must separate the "free tier" (the service to our community) from their profit-generating side. Without detailed reports, we cannot evaluate if our subsidy solely covers the infrastructure costs of the free tier, or if it is inadvertently subsidizing the premium tier, corporate profit margins, or executive bonuses.
A Clear Path to "YES"
I understand that Blockfrost is critical infrastructure, and I am highly motivated to see our indexing capabilities scale. I would gladly change my vote to YES if any of the following conditions are met in a revised proposal:- Share Costs = Share Revenues: Implement a business model where the community sees a return on its investment. For example, allocating a percentage of premium tier revenues back to the treasury is a highly viable path forward.
- Strict Business Unit Separation: Provide full transparency into the free path. Blockfrost must provide detailed reports allowing us to evaluate the exact costs of the free tier. There should be zero profit margin applied to the public subsidy of the free tier, while the premium side rightly remains a distinct, for-profit endeavor.
- A Neutral Treasury Fund for Indexing: After conducting a comprehensive assessment of our blockchain's indexing needs, we establish a neutral fund from the Treasury. This fund would be exclusively dedicated to supporting the baseline indexing needs (e.g., covering basic infrastructure costs) of all similar businesses in the ecosystem. This way, all companies gain the exact same foundational advantages without the protocol causing market distortion.
- Abstain313.4K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged300.6K ₳Rationale
This is PRIVATE COMPANY generating private undisclosed revenue. If I go to blockfrost I have to pay for their services, why do I have to fund their bussines too? This proposal is totally inappropriate.
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals
May 20th 2026
Summery
Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)
Important Citation
https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360
EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026
I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano $ADA.Charles quote tweeted saying
https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792
Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.Statement
There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.
While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.
I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - No294.4K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted279.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Blockfrost – Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing” in its current, bundled form.
This is not a rejection of the problem space or of Project Cayley. I see decentralized, scalable data infrastructure as strategically important for Cardano, especially as Leios increases throughput and full‑chain indexing becomes uneconomic for smaller operators. Cayley’s sliced indexing and multi‑chain data layer are directionally strong and align with Cardano’s 2030 infrastructure and scalability goals.
My objections are to how this proposal is structured and financed, not to the underlying architecture.- Bundling infra build and operational subsidy
The proposal combines two very different asks into a single vote:
a one‑off infrastructure build (Project Cayley), and
an ongoing operational subsidy for Blockfrost’s existing free‑tier service.
This “all‑or‑nothing” structure prevents governance from approving Cayley on its own merits while independently deciding whether subsidizing Blockfrost’s operations is appropriate. At this scale, I consider that a process defect. - Exclusive subsidy for a commercial freemium service
Blockfrost operates a commercial freemium model; the free tier is a path into paid plans. The proposal asks the treasury to underwrite a substantial portion of those free‑tier costs without:
- a monetization/repayment or revenue‑sharing mechanism back to the treasury,
- a clear taper or sunset for subsidy, or
- commitments that upside from cross‑ecosystem expansion (e.g., Bitcoin) will flow back to Cardano.
IO and affiliates already hold ₳130.7M in allocations, including prior Blockfrost funding (₳1.1375M, 88% drawn). Other private teams have been pushed toward loan‑like or revenue‑sharing models. Extending a large, pure OPEX subsidy here, with no reciprocal mechanism, sets a precedent I do not support.
3. Competition, centralization, and evidentiary standards
While I agree that data‑access services tend to centralize and that Cayley’s design is decentralization‑oriented, the immediate effect of subsidizing Blockfrost’s free tier is to further strengthen a single provider in a competitive market with multiple alternatives (Maestro, Cardanoscan, Koios, Dandelion, Ogmios, Yaci Store, etc.).
Key dependency claims—such as “~90% of free‑tier traffic,” “100+ Icebreakers,” and “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in projected savings—are not backed by independently verifiable data and at least one claim was removed after scrutiny. I am not comfortable using treasury funds to subsidize one incumbent’s operating costs and strategic expansion on the basis of unverified metrics, especially when this risks distorting competition and encouraging similar requests from other providers.
4. Prior funding and accountability
Given IO & affiliates’ existing ₳130.7M allocation and prior Blockfrost support, I expect a higher standard of backward‑looking accountability before approving a further multi‑million‑ADA ask.
The proposal acknowledges these prior receipts but does not provide a clear, quantified retrospective on:- how previous Blockfrost funds were used, and
- what measurable improvements (uptime, capacity, geographical redundancy, developer adoption) were delivered.
For repeat funding at this magnitude, assertions of importance are not enough; the community should see concrete, auditable results.
5. What I would support instead
My NO is specific to this combined packaging. I would be positively inclined toward a restructured approach, for example:
A Cayley‑only infrastructure proposal, with clear technical KPIs, decentralization metrics, audits, and reporting.
A separate, smaller, time‑bounded operations proposal (if still desired) that is competitively neutral, supported by transparent revenue/cost data, includes a taper or exit schedule, and offers some form of public return to the treasury (e.g., revenue share or capped loan).
In summary, I support solving the data‑infrastructure problem and view Cayley as promising, but I cannot support this specific mix of bundled infra and exclusive OPEX subsidy. For that reason, I am voting NO. - Bundling infra build and operational subsidy
- Yes261.6K ₳No rationale
- No261K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Review [EN]
Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
Vote: NO
1. Introduction
The Governance Action requests ₳7,916,666, equivalent to $1,900,000 at a reference rate of $0.24/₳, to fund Blockfrost’s “Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing” proposal. The action combines two funding components: Project Cayley / Mandoline, a decentralized slice-indexing architecture intended to reduce the resource burden of full-chain indexing, and an operational subsidy to maintain Blockfrost’s existing free-tier infrastructure while the decentralized infrastructure matures.
Project Cayley proposes to enable SPOs and other Cardano node operators to participate in data-serving infrastructure without maintaining a full dataset index. The proposed deliverables include an initial Cardano indexer release, a GraphQL API layer, Bitcoin indexer support, and repeated service-level compliance milestones for maintaining 99.9% uptime of the community free tier across Q2, Q3, and Q4 2026.
The budget allocates ₳3,333,333 to Product, Engineering and R&D, ₳833,333 to Security Audits, and ₳3,750,000 to Ops & Infrastructure. The operational subsidy is presented as support for a free-tier service that Blockfrost states it has historically funded itself and that accounts for approximately 90% of all free-tier Cardano API traffic.
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
Blockfrost is an important infrastructure provider. Many applications and developers have relied on its services to build and operate within the Cardano ecosystem, and the existence of accessible developer infrastructure remains valuable for adoption.
Project Cayley also appears to point toward a potentially useful technical direction, especially if future scalability improvements substantially increase Cardano’s data volume and make full-chain indexing more expensive for infrastructure providers.
The proposal frames Cayley as a response to future indexing challenges expected from increased throughput, particularly in relation to Leios. The basic logic is understandable: if Cardano processes more transactions, the blockchain dataset grows faster, and full-chain indexing becomes more expensive. Slice indexing could therefore reduce costs and allow more operators to participate in data infrastructure.
Negative aspects
The proposal combines two clearly distinguishable funding requests into a single all-or-nothing Treasury Withdrawal: the development of Project Cayley / Mandoline as a next-generation indexing architecture, and an operational subsidy to maintain Blockfrost’s existing free-tier infrastructure.
These two components may both be arguable on their own merits, but they are not sufficiently inseparable to justify being bundled into a single vote. This structure weakens governance clarity and forces dReps to accept or reject both components together, even if they support one and reject the other.
This type of bundling has increasingly become a governance concern. It creates unnecessary compromise, reduces the precision of treasury decision-making, and may ultimately harm proposers by generating additional opposition from voters who object to only part of the package.
In this case, Project Cayley and the free-tier maintenance subsidy could have been submitted and evaluated separately. Combining them creates a structural problem that weighs heavily against approval.
The operational subsidy component is also difficult to support in its current form. Blockfrost has already received ecosystem funding through previous Catalyst and Treasury processes, and it also operates paid tiers as part of its commercial model. Given that context, continued reliance on the Cardano Treasury raises sustainability concerns.
The proposal states that the operational subsidy would support the continuation of Blockfrost’s free tier and maintain a 99.9% SLA during the project period. It also explains that $600,000 would cover personnel and $300,000 would cover infrastructure costs. These are useful details, but they do not fully resolve the central issue: the proposal does not provide sufficient transparency regarding revenue, cost recovery, commercial sustainability, or a credible path toward financial independence from future Treasury support.
In addition, the budget breakdown remains very high-level and does not provide enough detail to instill confidence in the requested allocation.
The explanation of Cayley in the proposal also remains relatively high-level for a request of this size. The proposal describes the general problem of full-chain indexing costs and the intended solution of decentralized slice indexing, but provides limited concrete examples of current ecosystem pain points, current operators being priced out, measurable present demand, or specific scenarios where the absence of Cayley is already constraining Cardano adoption.
Risks and concerns
The Treasury should not become the default mechanism for annually subsidizing every important infrastructure provider whose free-tier model is not financially self-sustaining.
This concern is especially relevant because Cardano is already allocating substantial treasury resources toward infrastructure, maintenance, continuity of development, and alternative node implementations. If every relevant infrastructure provider is treated as eligible for recurring operational support, the Treasury risks becoming structurally committed to ongoing maintenance costs instead of preserving enough flexibility for new strategic priorities.
A stronger case for the free-tier maintenance component would require a clearer transition plan toward sustainability, more detailed justification for why the subsidy is necessary, and a stronger explanation of how the public benefit outweighs the risk of subsidizing an existing private infrastructure provider.
Without that, the proposal risks setting a precedent where the ecosystem socializes operational costs while commercial upside remains private.
The issue is not that Project Cayley lacks potential value. The issue is that the case for immediate Treasury funding is still largely based on projected future demand. Leios has not yet been implemented on mainnet, and the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate that Cardano currently faces an urgent indexing bottleneck that justifies this level of expenditure now.
With a limited Net Change Limit and many competing priorities, funding a development path whose strongest justification depends on a future high-throughput environment appears premature.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: NO
While recognizing Blockfrost’s historical relevance to the Cardano ecosystem and the value it has provided to many developers, this Governance Action presents significant concerns related to proposal structure, treasury discipline, funding prioritization, and the timing of the requested development work.
The issue is the current design of the Governance Action. It bundles separable components, asks the Treasury to subsidize an existing commercial service without sufficient sustainability commitments, and seeks funding for a future-oriented indexing architecture before the urgency of that architecture has been clearly demonstrated.
A more appropriate submission would separate the two components. A standalone Project Cayley proposal, focused on Cardano-first deliverables, with clearer technical detail, open-source commitments, SPO participation mechanics, and stronger evidence of timing necessity, could be evaluated on its own merits.
Likewise, a separate free-tier maintenance proposal with deeper financial transparency and a credible transition toward sustainability would allow dReps to assess whether temporary operational support is justified.
In its current form, however, the proposal presents too many structural, financial, and timing concerns to support.
4. Conclusion
Blockfrost’s contribution to Cardano and the potential value of improved data infrastructure are recognized. However, the bundled structure, insufficient sustainability commitments, unclear urgency, and weak Cardano-specific justification for some components create concerns that outweigh the case for approval in its current form.
Revisão de Ação de Governança [PT]
Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
Voto: NO
1. Introdução
A Ação de Governança solicita ₳7.916.666, equivalente a US$1.900.000 a uma taxa de referência de US$0,24/₳, para financiar a proposta “Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing” da Blockfrost. A ação combina dois componentes de financiamento: Project Cayley / Mandoline, uma arquitetura descentralizada de indexação por fatias destinada a reduzir a carga de recursos da indexação completa da blockchain, e um subsídio operacional para manter a infraestrutura gratuita existente da Blockfrost enquanto a infraestrutura descentralizada amadurece.
O Project Cayley propõe permitir que SPOs e outros operadores de nodes da Cardano participem da infraestrutura de fornecimento de dados sem manter um índice completo do conjunto de dados. As entregas propostas incluem uma versão inicial do indexador para Cardano, uma camada de API GraphQL, suporte a indexador de Bitcoin e marcos recorrentes de conformidade de nível de serviço para manter 99,9% de uptime do free tier comunitário ao longo de Q2, Q3 e Q4 de 2026.
O orçamento aloca ₳3.333.333 para Produto, Engenharia e P&D, ₳833.333 para Auditorias de Segurança e ₳3.750.000 para Operações e Infraestrutura. O subsídio operacional é apresentado como apoio a um serviço gratuito que a Blockfrost afirma ter historicamente financiado sozinha e que responde por aproximadamente 90% de todo o tráfego gratuito de API da Cardano.
2. Análise da Ação de Governança
Aspectos positivos
A Blockfrost é um provedor de infraestrutura importante. Muitas aplicações e desenvolvedores dependeram de seus serviços para construir e operar dentro do ecossistema Cardano, e a existência de infraestrutura acessível para desenvolvedores continua sendo valiosa para adoção.
O Project Cayley também parece apontar para uma direção técnica potencialmente útil, especialmente se futuras melhorias de escalabilidade aumentarem substancialmente o volume de dados da Cardano e tornarem a indexação completa da blockchain mais cara para provedores de infraestrutura.
A proposta apresenta Cayley como uma resposta a futuros desafios de indexação esperados com o aumento de throughput, particularmente em relação ao Leios. A lógica básica é compreensível: se a Cardano processar mais transações, o conjunto de dados da blockchain cresce mais rapidamente, e a indexação completa se torna mais cara. A indexação por fatias poderia, portanto, reduzir custos e permitir que mais operadores participem da infraestrutura de dados.
Aspectos negativos
A proposta combina dois pedidos de financiamento claramente distinguíveis em uma única Treasury Withdrawal de tudo ou nada: o desenvolvimento do Project Cayley / Mandoline como uma arquitetura de indexação de próxima geração, e um subsídio operacional para manter a infraestrutura gratuita existente da Blockfrost.
Esses dois componentes podem ser defensáveis por seus próprios méritos, mas não são suficientemente inseparáveis para justificar sua inclusão em um único voto. Essa estrutura enfraquece a clareza de governança e força dReps a aceitar ou rejeitar ambos os componentes juntos, mesmo que apoiem um e rejeitem o outro.
Esse tipo de agrupamento tem se tornado cada vez mais uma preocupação de governança. Ele cria compromissos desnecessários, reduz a precisão da tomada de decisão do Tesouro e pode, no fim, prejudicar os próprios proponentes ao gerar oposição adicional de votantes que discordam apenas de parte do pacote.
Neste caso, o Project Cayley e o subsídio de manutenção do free tier poderiam ter sido submetidos e avaliados separadamente. Combiná-los cria um problema estrutural que pesa fortemente contra a aprovação.
O componente de subsídio operacional também é difícil de apoiar em sua forma atual. A Blockfrost já recebeu financiamento do ecossistema por meio de processos anteriores do Catalyst e do Tesouro, e também opera planos pagos como parte de seu modelo comercial. Dado esse contexto, a dependência contínua do Tesouro da Cardano levanta preocupações de sustentabilidade.
A proposta afirma que o subsídio operacional apoiaria a continuidade do free tier da Blockfrost e manteria um SLA de 99,9% durante o período do projeto. Ela também explica que US$600.000 cobririam pessoal e US$300.000 cobririam custos de infraestrutura. Esses detalhes são úteis, mas não resolvem completamente a questão central: a proposta não fornece transparência suficiente sobre receita, recuperação de custos, sustentabilidade comercial ou um caminho crível para independência financeira em relação a futuro apoio do Tesouro.
Além disso, a divisão orçamentária permanece muito genérica e não fornece detalhes suficientes para gerar confiança na alocação solicitada.
A explicação de Cayley na proposta também permanece relativamente genérica para um pedido desse tamanho. A proposta descreve o problema geral dos custos de indexação completa da blockchain e a solução pretendida de indexação descentralizada por fatias, mas fornece exemplos concretos limitados de dores atuais do ecossistema, operadores atualmente excluídos por custo, demanda presente mensurável ou cenários específicos nos quais a ausência de Cayley já esteja limitando a adoção da Cardano.
Riscos e preocupações
O Tesouro não deve se tornar o mecanismo padrão para subsidiar anualmente todo provedor de infraestrutura importante cujo modelo de free tier não seja financeiramente autossustentável.
Essa preocupação é especialmente relevante porque a Cardano já está alocando recursos substanciais do Tesouro para infraestrutura, manutenção, continuidade de desenvolvimento e implementações alternativas de nodes. Se todo provedor de infraestrutura relevante for tratado como elegível para suporte operacional recorrente, o Tesouro corre o risco de ficar estruturalmente comprometido com custos contínuos de manutenção, em vez de preservar flexibilidade suficiente para novas prioridades estratégicas.
Um caso mais forte para o componente de manutenção do free tier exigiria um plano de transição mais claro em direção à sustentabilidade, uma justificativa mais detalhada para explicar por que o subsídio é necessário e uma explicação mais forte de como o benefício público supera o risco de subsidiar um provedor privado de infraestrutura já existente.
Sem isso, a proposta corre o risco de estabelecer um precedente no qual o ecossistema socializa custos operacionais enquanto o potencial comercial permanece privado.
O problema não é que o Project Cayley não tenha valor potencial. O problema é que o caso para financiamento imediato pelo Tesouro ainda se baseia amplamente em demanda futura projetada. Leios ainda não foi implementado na mainnet, e a proposta não demonstra suficientemente que a Cardano enfrenta atualmente um gargalo urgente de indexação que justifique esse nível de despesa agora.
Com um Net Change Limit limitado e muitas prioridades concorrentes, financiar uma linha de desenvolvimento cuja justificativa mais forte depende de um futuro ambiente de alto throughput parece prematuro.
3. Voto e Justificativa
Voto: NO
Embora a relevância histórica da Blockfrost para o ecossistema Cardano e o valor que ela forneceu a muitos desenvolvedores sejam reconhecidos, esta Ação de Governança apresenta preocupações significativas relacionadas à estrutura da proposta, disciplina do Tesouro, priorização de financiamento e ao timing do trabalho de desenvolvimento solicitado.
O problema é o desenho atual da Ação de Governança. Ela agrupa componentes separáveis, pede que o Tesouro subsidie um serviço comercial existente sem compromissos suficientes de sustentabilidade, e busca financiamento para uma arquitetura de indexação orientada ao futuro antes que a urgência dessa arquitetura tenha sido claramente demonstrada.
Uma submissão mais apropriada separaria os dois componentes. Uma proposta independente para o Project Cayley, focada em entregas Cardano-first, com maior detalhamento técnico, compromissos open-source, mecânicas de participação de SPOs e evidências mais fortes sobre a necessidade de timing, poderia ser avaliada por seus próprios méritos.
Da mesma forma, uma proposta separada de manutenção do free tier, com maior transparência financeira e uma transição crível em direção à sustentabilidade, permitiria aos dReps avaliar se um apoio operacional temporário se justifica.
Em sua forma atual, porém, a proposta apresenta preocupações estruturais, financeiras e de timing em excesso para ser apoiada.
4. Conclusão
A contribuição da Blockfrost para a Cardano e o valor potencial de uma infraestrutura de dados aprimorada são reconhecidos. No entanto, a estrutura agrupada, os compromissos insuficientes de sustentabilidade, a urgência pouco clara e a justificativa Cardano-specific fraca para alguns componentes criam preocupações que superam o caso para aprovação em sua forma atual.
- No245.5K ₳Rationale
It is not the treasury's responsibility to fund updates to profit-generating products that were acquired by founding entities.
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳7.9M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure. - Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- No234.2K ₳Rationale
tbh, blockfrost can maintain itself since it's a paid-to-use service. I will approve this fund if blockfrost share its revenue back to the treasury
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted232.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes207.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes181.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes142.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- No128K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of the Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing proposal.
While Cardano is a maturing network, it is not yet a fully self-sustaining market economy. Hundreds of developers and dApps currently rely on Blockfrost’s free tier for daily operations. Forcing a sudden shift to paid models or alternative providers during a critical growth phase would introduce unnecessary friction and potentially stifle current ecosystem activity.
Unlike unvetted actors, Blockfrost has a long-standing history of delivering high-availability infrastructure for Cardano since 2020. Their technical competence provides a high degree of confidence that the treasury funds will result in tangible deliverables, particularly the next-generation indexing service.
This is also not a permanent operational subsidy but a bridge to the Cayley open-source initiative. By funding this transition, the treasury is effectively purchasing the decentralization of critical data infrastructure, moving the ecosystem away from the current centralized API bottleneck and toward a more resilient, community-centric model.
Supporting this proposal is an investment in operational resilience. It protects the current developer experience and when the market economy on Cardano is more evolved we will have an open source option. I think that's a good use of funds. - Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- No85.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain49.7K ₳Rationale
I abstained because I see valid arguments on both sides.
On one hand, Blockfrost has delivered valuable infrastructure for Cardano. Many builders rely on simple and reliable access to blockchain data, and this kind of invisible infrastructure is important for adoption, developer experience, and continuity. I do not want to dismiss the real value Blockfrost has provided or the possible short-term friction that could affect builders if service capacity is reduced.
On the other hand, treasury funding should not be evaluated only by whether a service is useful. The stronger governance question is whether the funding leaves Cardano more open, resilient, accountable, decentralized, and capable after the funding period ends.
For a proposal of this size and importance, I would like to see clearer answers around public-good scope, sustainability, free-tier burden, revenue/cost transparency, open-source outputs, measurable KPIs, and the path toward reducing single-provider dependency. I would also prefer a clearer separation between operational support for an existing commercial service and development of next-generation public-good infrastructure.
My abstention reflects that tension.
I am not voting against the importance of data access. I am also not ready to fully endorse this funding structure without stronger clarity on ecosystem capacity, decentralization outcomes, and post-funding sustainability.
Cardano should support serious infrastructure builders. But treasury funding should be designed as ecosystem capacity-building, not only service continuity.
The standard I want to see is simple:
Fund infrastructure that makes Cardano more useful, more resilient, more measurable, and less dependent over time. - Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
I shall continue to vote in favor of the Input Output Global (iOG formerly known as iOHK) proposals due to the fact that iOG has continuously year in and year out built, upgraded, innovated, and further strengthened the ecosystem through various market upheavals, negative press, and technological shifts. Through continuous efforts this cadre of developers, educators, various business persons, scientists, and experts in their fields have proven more than capable of the continued maintenance and innovation necessary to further the Cardano blackchain. I find value in all proposals from iOG until a suitable development group or lab can prove not only innovative, but evolutionary for the technology in which we all utilize and enjoy. The blockchain has survived based off of the creators of the protocol, we must continue the path set forth until we have a suitable substitute that can create viable upgrades and are capable of pushing the community and the blockchain into a realm of technological dominance I vote Yes for this proposal.
LourdeOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.7K ₳No rationale