Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit
192 DReps voted · 63 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 10 to yes, 2 to no, 2 to abstain, together voting with 654.5M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
7 of 192 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 12.9%, top 5 combined 41.5% of 4.5B ₳ voted.
The 8 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Abstain457.4M ₳Rationale
"Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision."
- AbstainChanged441.6M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)(Updated on July 22nd)
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain350.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain304.6M ₳Rationale
"EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved."
- Yes278.5M ₳No rationale
- No216.7M ₳Rationale
We appreciate the attempt to transform Blockfrost into a public good.
But 13600 USD per month per employee in Europe? How much of a monthly income does Blockfrost currently generate, what does it currently cover?
- No185M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged182.6M ₳Rationale
The wanchain post-mortem analysis announcement changes my opinion on this from "abstain" -> "yes"
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- No170.6M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. We recognize Blockfrost's importance to Cardano's developers, however this proposal’s budget is insufficiently justified against the stated scope.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Blockfrost is a widely relied-upon access layer for building on Cardano, and moving a piece of critical infrastructure out of a single commercial vendor and into community governance is a defensible public-good aim. We commend the team for reshaping an earlier commercial proposal in response to community feedback. However, we cannot support this withdrawal in its current form.
- The core asset is already open and already community-funded. The Blockfrost backend has been published under Apache-2.0 since September 2022, and that open-sourcing was itself funded through Project Catalyst. The reference to "source code ... transferred into community stewardship" therefore overstates what changes hands. Stripped of the already-open code, the request resolves into a one-time transfer of trademarks and domains plus 18 months of operating expenses, and should be justified as such rather than as the community acquiring a codebase it does not have. This transfer can be done relatively inexpensively, although further detail would be required (number of trademarks, their registration details, transfer destination) to better understand this.
- The budget is not adequately substantiated. Staffing accounts for roughly 79% of the request for a team of six, on an already-built product entering a maintenance and transition phase. The proposal does not provide deliverable-level detail sufficient to justify this level of investment.
- The path to sustainability is non-binding. Both routes to self-sufficiency are framed as options a future board "could consider," while the only concrete milestone commits to opening a discussion. After 18 months and ~9.83 million ada, there is no binding commitment to operating without further treasury support, which structurally invites a follow-up request.
- Transparency and the community Board seat. The preliminary board is composed of infrastructure vendors, some of whom could become paying partners under the proposed vendor-backed model, while the single community-elected seat arrives only after the formative stage is complete. We would expect further detail on conflict of interest safeguards and additional, specific, reporting obligations to bridge the gap between inception of the work and election of the community director.
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. Our objection is to this implementation, not to the goal of securing Blockfrost as a community-governed public good. We encourage the team to return with a leaner, detailed, request justified transparently as operating expenditure and a brand transfer, with deliverable-level budget detail, a binding sustainability commitment, and enhanced transparency safeguards.
---> **_NOTE on 'Internal Voting':_**> The fields _constitutional_ and _unconstitutional_ below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are _for_ or _against_ the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - No105.9M ₳Rationale
I recognize that Blockfrost is an important service within the Cardano ecosystem. However, I do not believe this proposal sufficiently demonstrates why nearly 9.8 million ADA of Treasury funding is necessary to sustain it.
The proposal presents strong usage metrics, including developer adoption and API traffic, but it does not adequately demonstrate the actual impact on the ecosystem if the free Blockfrost service were no longer available. Usage alone is not sufficient justification for ongoing Treasury support.
There is also limited evidence comparing Blockfrost with available alternatives or quantifying how many developers or projects would be unable to continue without a free hosted service. The proposal demonstrates popularity, but not necessity.
Furthermore, the proposal states that approximately 90% of usage comes from the free tier. This suggests that the current business model is not financially sustainable. Rather than asking the Treasury to subsidize operating costs, I believe sustainable pricing models or market-based solutions should be explored first.
The Cardano Treasury should prioritize funding public goods and core infrastructure that cannot reasonably be sustained through the market. While I acknowledge Blockfrost's value to the ecosystem, I do not believe this proposal has sufficiently justified why the Treasury should assume long-term operational responsibility at this scale.
For these reasons, I vote No.
BlockfrostがCardanoエコシステムにおいて重要なサービスであることは認識しています。しかし、本提案では、約983万ADAものTreasury資金を投入しなければならない必然性が十分に示されていないと考えます。
提案では、利用者数やAPIリクエスト数などの実績は示されていますが、「Blockfrostが無料で提供されなくなった場合、Cardanoエコシステムにどの程度の実害が発生するのか」という需要分析や影響評価は十分ではありません。
利用されていることと、Treasuryによる継続的な運営支援が必要であることは別問題です。代替手段との比較や、開発者・プロジェクトが実際にどの程度困るのかを客観的に示すデータが不足しています。
また、本提案では90%の利用が無料ユーザーであることが説明されていますが、これは現在のビジネスモデルが十分に持続可能ではないことを示しているとも解釈できます。事業モデルの課題をTreasuryで補填するのではなく、まずは持続可能な料金体系や市場原理による解決を優先すべきではないでしょうか。
Cardano Treasuryは、市場だけでは十分に供給されない公共財やコアインフラを優先的に支援すべきです。本提案はBlockfrostの価値を否定するものではありませんが、現時点ではTreasuryによる大規模な運営費負担を正当化する根拠が十分ではないと判断し、反対します。
- YesChanged96M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- No93.3M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit.
My rationale:
I recognize that Blockfrost is a valuable infrastructure for Cardano developers. However, the core question for me is not whether Blockfrost is useful, but whether the Treasury should reinforce dependence on one dominant access provider or reduce that dependence.
The proposal itself states that in most epochs, more than 50% of Cardano transactions are submitted through Blockfrost. I see this not only as evidence of importance, but also as evidence of an access-layer centralization problem.
For this reason, I believe Treasury funding should be used to increase provider diversity, not to concentrate almost ₳10M into one dominant provider.
Cardano does not depend only on Blockfrost. Developers can already use other access-layer solutions such as Koios, Ogmios/Kupo, Maestro, or self-hosted infrastructure.
This matters because the Treasury should not make one dominant provider even more central to the ecosystem. If Blockfrost already handles a large share of Cardano transaction submission, then funding it alone may preserve the same dependency problem instead of solving it.
In my view, Treasury funding should strengthen a diverse access layer: multiple providers, failover tooling, and easier ways for wallets and dApps to use multiple backends.
We need to build a competitive and resilient infrastructure market where no single provider is indispensable.
I also consider the history of prior community funding relevant. Blockfrost previously received Catalyst funding for “Open-sourcing Blockfrost API.” That Catalyst proposal is complete, with $119,000 distributed, and its stated goal was to open-source the Blockfrost backend under the Apache License 2.0.
Much of Blockfrost already appears to be public and reusable today: the backend is under the Apache License 2.0, the OpenAPI specification is under the MIT License, and the decentralized platform is also under the Apache License 2.0.
Because of this, the proposal should be much more precise about what the community is actually receiving that it does not already have.
The proposal says that all Blockfrost intellectual property, including source code, trademarks, domain names, and associated assets, will be transferred to the governing not-for-profit. But if major parts of the code are already open-source, then the most valuable parts of the transfer are likely the brand, domains, operational infrastructure, dashboard systems, production know-how, user base, and any remaining private assets.
I do not believe the community should pay a large premium mainly for trademarks and continuity if the better strategic goal is provider diversity.
I am also concerned that nearly 80% of the requested budget goes to staffing.
The proposal asks the Treasury to fund six people for 18 months: four developers, one project manager, and one community manager. I do not object to paying people for critical infrastructure work, but the proposal should better explain why this exact team size is needed for the full transition period, what each role will deliver, and how the work will be publicly verifiable.
Based on visible public GitHub activity, I see ongoing maintenance and development, but not enough obvious evidence to justify four full-time developers for 18 months without a clearer roadmap and milestone-linked deliverables. Otherwise, the ask risks looking more like an 18-month payroll subsidy than a tightly scoped public-good transition.
There is also ambiguity around DevOps costs. The proposal says the Ops & Infrastructure budget covers the infrastructure stack and also the DevOps personnel who monitor and operate it, while the staffing budget separately includes four developers.
It should be clear whether DevOps labor is included in staffing, infrastructure, or both. I would expect a role-by-role allocation, expected public/open-source deliverables, and clear evidence that the staffing budget produces concrete public value.
I could support a smaller, milestone-based transition proposal if the transition is shorter. But I do not think an 18-month, ₳9.83M operating subsidy for the dominant provider is the best way to build long-term resilience.
Before allocating large funding of this type, DReps should coordinate on a broader access-layer strategy. We should first decide what kind of infrastructure market Cardano wants: one dominant public API funded by the Treasury, or a diverse ecosystem of providers. Without that strategy, each proposal is assessed in isolation, and the Treasury may unintentionally reinforce centralization.
Treasury funding should buy decentralization, redundancy, and competition in the access layer. As written, this proposal risks preserving dependency instead of reducing it.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66...skqwqp - Yes89.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- No88.1M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is important infrastructure. But, as others have pointed out, it looks like the team is asking for an average of over $13k per month per team member? Way too rich for my blood.
- Yes83.9M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal "Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit" (9,832,979 ADA).
This action funds an 18-month transition of Blockfrost — the most widely used hosted API for building on Cardano, the "lingua franca" developers rely on to read from and interact with the chain without running their own node — from an IOG-owned asset into a free, community-governed public good. The source code, trademarks, and domains would move into an independent not-for-profit under a community-elected board. The request is 9,832,979 ADA (a modeled ~$1,868,266 at $0.19/ADA), disbursed against deliverables, with any unspent funds returned to the Treasury and quarterly public reporting.
SIPO supports this. Blockfrost is genuine developer infrastructure, and converting it from a single-vendor commercial asset into a permissively-governed public good — owned by the community that builds on it — is exactly the kind of ecosystem-hardening the treasury exists for. It is the same public-good category SIPO supported across the 2026 Intersect Budget Process infrastructure withdrawals. Fund control is the strongest class SIPO recognizes: the on-chain recipient is the 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract at the script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v, on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework, with milestone-gated disbursement, a multi-party authorization quorum, independent oversight, and a public dashboard. The Constitutional Committee voted 3-0 that the action is constitutional.
SIPO attaches expectations rather than treating the design as settled. First, the not-for-profit itself is not yet formed: the legal entity, the choice between a new organization and an existing host, and the five-seat board election are all to be determined during the transition. SIPO expects the entity structure and the board-election process and timeline to be finalized and published, so the destination of these public assets is concrete before the bulk of funds are disbursed. Second, Blockfrost currently operates a commercial, paid offering; a treasury-funded transition to a public good should disclose how the existing commercial arrangement, its revenue, and the asset valuation are handled, so the community understands what it is receiving and at what basis. Third, the proposal itself contemplates a future community-run commercial tier whose profits return to the Treasury; SIPO expects that return, if adopted, to be contractually fixed so the treasury's transition funding functions as the investment the proposal describes. None of these conditions the vote; they are the basis on which SIPO will judge delivery. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、トレジャリー引き出し提案「Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit」（9,832,979 ADA）に、期待事項を付して賛成（YES）を投じます。
本件は、Cardano 上で開発するために最も広く使われているホスト型 API — 開発者が自前のノードを動かさずにチェーンを読み書きするための "lingua franca" である Blockfrost — を、IOG 所有の資産から、無料でコミュニティが統治する公共財へと 18 ヶ月かけて移行するための資金です。ソースコード・商標・ドメインは、コミュニティが選出する理事会のもとで独立した not-for-profit へ移されます。要求額は 9,832,979 ADA（$0.19/ADA でモデル上 約 $1,868,266）で、成果物に対して支払われ、未消化分は国庫へ返還、四半期ごとに公開報告されます。
SIPO はこれを支持します。Blockfrost は本物の開発者インフラであり、単一ベンダーの商用資産から、それを土台に開発するコミュニティが所有する寛容なライセンスの公共財へ転換することは、まさに国庫が担うべきエコシステム強化です。これは SIPO が 2026 Intersect Budget Process のインフラ引き出しで支持したのと同じ公共財の類型です。資金統制は SIPO が認める最強の類型で、オンチェーン受領先は 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract（script credential: stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v・Sundae Labs treasury-contracts フレームワーク上）で、milestone gate 支出・複数者の承認定足数・独立した監督・公開ダッシュボードを備えます。Constitutional Committee は 3 対 0 で本アクションを合憲と判断しています。
SIPO は設計が確定したとは扱わず、期待事項を付します。第一に、not-for-profit 自体がまだ形成されていません。法的実体、新組織か既存ホストへの統合かの選択、5 議席の理事会選挙は、いずれも移行期間中に決定されます。SIPO は、これら公共資産の行き先が資金の大半が支払われる前に具体化されるよう、組織構造と理事会選挙のプロセス・スケジュールが確定され公開されることを期待します。第二に、Blockfrost は現在、商用の有料提供を運営しています。国庫資金による公共財化にあたっては、既存の商用の取り扱い・収益・資産評価がどう処理されるかを開示し、コミュニティが何をどの基礎で受け取るのかを理解できるようにすべきです。第三に、提案自身が、利益を国庫へ返す将来のコミュニティ運営の商用 tier を想定しています。SIPO は、それが採用される場合、国庫の移行資金が提案の言う「投資」として機能するよう、その返還が契約で固定されることを期待します。これらはいずれも本投票の条件ではなく、SIPO が履行を判断する際の基礎です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes80.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain75.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on the Blockfrost transformation to a not for profit treasury withdrawal.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting ABSTAIN on the Blockfrost transformation to a not for profit treasury withdrawal.
Initially, I leaned heavily toward a NO vote. The request for 9.83 million ADA is a massive expenditure for the treasury, and I have reservations knowing this transition could bring additional operational funding requirements in the future to keep the infrastructure running.
However, I recently joined a space where I asked some difficult questions, and I was extremely impressed with the responses. I want to credit Marek specifically for this, as his transparency provided much needed clarity and confidence regarding the staff costs and the technical transition plans.
I see tremendous value in Blockfrost and how effortlessly it allows developers to dive in and query the blockchain. I personally appreciate their approach of offering software development kits across various programming languages, and I can speak to my own positive experience using a paid plan and engaging with their support team a few years ago. While alternative avenues like Koios exist, the foundational role Blockfrost plays in our ecosystem is undeniable.
Ultimately, while the sheer size of the ask and the potential for future treasury reliance prevent me from voting YES, the value of the platform and the accountability shown by the team mean I do not want to stand in the way. Therefore, I am choosing to abstain and allow the broader community consensus to decide the outcome.
- Yes69.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes53.3M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on the Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit proposal.
Blockfrost is currently the most widely used RPC/API service in the Cardano ecosystem, a core tool that countless wallets, dApps, and developers depend on for chain access.
What matters most is that this proposal transfers most of its assets, including the source code, trademarks, and domains, into a community-owned not-for-profit. This isn't openness in name only. It's a genuine handover of ownership itself to the community. I've consistently voted No on proposals that take public funds while keeping their output proprietary, and this proposal is a rare case going in exactly the opposite direction.
Of course, I don't believe this support should be permanent. If the ecosystem matures on its own and reasonable, quality RPC services emerge that can replace Blockfrost, then support can be reconsidered at that point. But given this infrastructure's standing today and the direction of a full handover to the community, I believe it's well worth supporting.
For these reasons, I'm voting Yes.
- Abstain50.8M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No43.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- No41.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain39.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on governance action 5439b614162543...9997#0.
I must vote abstain because of a direct conflict of interest in this proposal. Sundae Labs has been asked to provide an interim board member for the formation of the non-profit.
That being said, having agreed to provide that support, I am clearly in support of this proposal. I believe transitioning Blockfrost to a not-for-profit structure will foster a reliable, non-exploitive, and neutral infrastructure layer for Cardano that the core node alone cannot satisfy.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes37M ₳No rationale
- No36.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes35.2M ₳No rationale
- No32.4M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is a valuable and widely used piece of developer infrastructure, and I appreciate the team’s long-standing contribution to the Cardano ecosystem. The transition toward a community‑governed, not‑for‑profit model is a positive direction, and the public‑good intent is clear. However, the requested amount of 9,832,979 ADA is difficult to justify under a financial‑prudence framework, especially given that Blockfrost is not part of Cardano’s life‑support infrastructure and multiple alternative API and indexing solutions exist. While I support the vision of strengthening community‑owned infrastructure, the scale of this withdrawal exceeds what I consider appropriate at this time.
- Yes30.6M ₳Rationale
I believe Blockfrost has become too integral to Cardano's infrastructure to be abandoned at this stage. Many projects and developers rely on it today, and maintaining a reliable, widely adopted infrastructure service benefits the ecosystem as a whole.
- No28.7M ₳No rationale
- No28.1M ₳Rationale
This is a difficult vote for me because I am a fan of the Blockfrost team and what they are trying to do. However, there are a plethora of alternatives in the ecosystem already such as Koios, Iagon Insights, Ogmios, etc. I think it would be a disservice to them if we choose winners with public funding. Additionally, I understand that many different projects and services currently rely on Blockfrost, but I don't think it is wise to treat it as a single point of failure when alternatives exist. For these reasons, I'm voting NO.
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to fund Blockfrost's transition to not-for-profit. It's an expensive ask, though I believe many ecosystem participants use Blockfrost in various capacities. I built the Cardano's first token claim system on Adosia using Blockfrost prior to cofounding DripDropz, so I strongly believe Blockfrost to be advantageous and beneficial to DevX.
- No25.8M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has already been financed in the past, and Cardano governance has already passed a budget about the critical infrastructure.
Either, money from this pot is allocated to Blockfrost, otherwise Blockfrost is not seen as a critical infrastructure piece of the Cardano blockchain.
- Yes23.6M ₳Rationale
Non-profit, open source public good sounds great!
- No22.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.7M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
We recognize Blockfrost as important developer infrastructure that has helped many Cardano builders.
However, we do not support this proposal in its current form. The proposal itself shows how dependent the ecosystem already is on Blockfrost. Funding that dependency directly from the treasury may preserve a useful service, but it also risks reinforcing centralization around one access layer.
We would prefer a broader infrastructure strategy that supports multiple providers, open standards, self-hostable tooling, and reduced dependency on any single service.
We are also not fully convinced by the long-term sustainability model after the 18-month transition. For this size of request, the future cost structure and recurring funding risk should be clearer.
- Yes20.3M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is an essential API provider for Cardano. I support this transformation to non-for-profit and the path to sustainability to not depend on the treasury for the free tier for good.
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.3M ₳Rationale
Vote: YES
This proposal (governance action 5439b614162543...9997#0) requests a one-time treasury grant of ₳9,832,979 (~$1.57M USD at the ~$0.16/ADA reference rate) to transition Blockfrost — today a private company's product — into a free, community-governed public good under an independent not-for-profit. The plan commits to a free, open public API across mainnet, preview, and preprod with no paid tier, a minimum 99% monthly uptime, a legal transfer of source code, trademarks, and domains into community stewardship, and an on-chain-elected community board, phased across Q3 2026 (architecture and public dashboard), Q4 2026 (board elected), and Q1 2027 (traffic migrated, IP legally transferred). Any unspent funds are returned to the Cardano Treasury.
Dracula DAO votes YES. Blockfrost is not optional tooling — it is load-bearing infrastructure that a large share of Cardano wallets, dApps, and builders query every day. Its current status as a single private company's product is itself a systemic risk: the ecosystem's most widely used API is a single point of failure controlled by one commercial entity, and that entity has already returned to the treasury and to Catalyst for funding more than once. Converting that dependency into a neutral, openly governed public good — with the source, trademarks, and domains irreversibly transferred into community stewardship and a community-elected board directing it — durably removes that single point of failure. This is foundational, long-term infrastructure of exactly the kind the DREP exists to support, and a free, no-paid-tier API directly lowers the cost of building on Cardano for every team that follows.
The value accrues to ADA holders, not to a private balance sheet. Rather than the ecosystem paying rent in perpetuity to a company it does not control, this transition puts a critical piece of Cardano's infrastructure into the hands of the people who depend on it and gives them governance over how it is run and funded. The commitment to a public usage dashboard, quarterly technical and budget reporting, a minimum 99% uptime SLA, and the return of unspent funds to the treasury reflects a level of transparency and accountability that a lump-sum request would not carry. The ₳9.8M is a one-time cost to acquire and open-source an asset the ecosystem will own outright — a fundamentally different proposition from an operating subsidy for a private venture.
Dracula DAO registers its standard concerns and does not let them override the vote. The funding is structured as a one-time transition grant to the incumbent team without competitive bidding, and while deliverables are staged by quarter, staged reporting is weaker than per-milestone smart-contract release with independent sign-off of the kind that secured the IO Hydra withdrawal; we would have preferred escrowed, completion-gated disbursement. The free-forever, no-revenue model also leaves the long-term operating cost of the service unresolved, and the withdrawal is made at a depressed ADA price. These are real, and Dracula DAO expects the incoming community board to treat a sustainable funding path — an endowment, usage-based revenue, or a defined route off treasury dependence — as a first-order priority, and to make good on the transparency commitments in this proposal. On balance, the strategic value of moving Cardano's most critical API into permanent community ownership outweighs these structural gaps, and Dracula DAO votes YES.
References:
- Momentum proposal page: https://momentum.cardano.iog.io/proposals/blockfrost
- Governance action: 5439b614162543...9997#0
- Yes15.3M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit
- Yes12M ₳Rationale
Blockfrostは、多くのウォレットやdApps、開発者に利用されているCardanoエコシステムを支える重要なインフラストラクチャです。本提案では、その運営をコミュニティ主導の非営利組織へ移行し、単一の商業主体に依存しない公共財として長期的に維持することを目指しています。この方向性には意義があると考え、私はこの提案に賛成します。\n\nBlockfrost is an important piece of infrastructure supporting the Cardano ecosystem and is relied upon by many wallets, dApps, and developers. This proposal aims to transition Blockfrost to a community-governed not-for-profit so that it can be maintained as a public good without relying on a single commercial entity. I believe this is a meaningful direction, and therefore I vote Yes on this proposal.
- No11.9M ₳Rationale
We recognize the strategic importance of Blockfrost to the Cardano ecosystem and support the principle of critical infrastructure being operated as an open, community-oriented public good. However, the proposal does not yet provide sufficient certainty for us to support a Treasury commitment of this scale.
Our primary concern is long-term sustainability. The proposal requests 18 months of Treasury funding while the permanent economic model remains unresolved and is only expected to be developed through a future consultation. What is the projected revenue model after the 18-month runway? What level of commercial revenue is required for the organization to become self-sustaining? What happens if the proposed commercial or vendor-backed models fail to generate sufficient income? Without credible answers, we are concerned that the Treasury could become the de facto recurring funder of an infrastructure service that is already highly systemically important.
We are also unconvinced by the level of financial transparency supporting the ₳9.83 million request. Nearly 80% of the budget is allocated to staffing, yet the proposal does not provide sufficient detail on compensation bands, fully loaded employment costs, the division between transition and steady-state operations, or the basis for concluding that the proposed six-person team represents the most efficient operating model. We need to understand the current operating costs, existing commercial revenues, and the unit economics of the service before we can confidently assess value for money.
The proposed governance and ownership transition also requires stronger assurances. What precise legal entity will own the source code, trademarks, and domains? When will the transfer be legally completed? Will the transfer be a binding condition for the release of Treasury funds? How will conflicts of interest be managed among board members, infrastructure providers, commercial vendors, and organizations connected to the current ecosystem? We are not yet satisfied that the proposed five-seat board structure sufficiently protects against institutional concentration or future capture.
We also require clearer evidence that the proposed transition will produce meaningful technical decentralization, rather than simply changing the legal ownership of a centralized service. What proportion of traffic is currently served by independent operators? How geographically and organizationally distributed are those operators? What level of concentration exists among the largest providers, and can the service remain resilient if major operators withdraw?
Finally, we are concerned that the proposal does not sufficiently address future Treasury dependency. A critical public good may legitimately require Treasury support, but such support should be accompanied by clear sustainability targets, transparent cost metrics, and defined conditions that prevent an 18-month transition grant from becoming an open-ended operating subsidy.
Our NO vote is therefore not a rejection of Blockfrost's importance or of the goal of community ownership. Rather, we believe the proposal requires greater clarity and stronger safeguards before the Treasury should commit nearly ₳10 million to its transition process.
- No10.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on Blockfrost proposal.
This is being presented as a community takeover of critical Cardano infrastructure. In reality, the community is being asked for around 10 million $ADA to fund 18 months of salaries and operations before the basic facts of the proposed acquisition have been properly disclosed.
The community does not know what it is acquiring - The proposal says that Blockfrost's source code, trademarks, domains and associated assets will eventually be transferred to a not-for-profit. It does not clearly disclose:
- the current legal owner of each asset
- the complete asset schedule
- the chain of title for the website, domains, trademarks and code
- whether any assets are owned, controlled or merely licensed
- what rights Five Binaries, IOG or other parties retain
- the value assigned to the assets or the actual acquisition price
There has already been a dispute over who owns Blockfrost.io and its IP. Blockfrost's legal terms previously described the site as Five Binaries' proprietary property. Its invoices stated "Blockfrost.io by Five Binaries OÜ" and used Five Binaries' VAT number.
When ownership representations change after scrutiny, the answer is not to wave the proposal through. The answer is to require independent legal verification of the chain of title.
What did IOG acquire in 2024?
The proposal states that Blockfrost was founded by Five Binaries and "joined IOG" in 2024. It does not explain what that means commercially.
The community should be told:
- what IOG acquired
- whether it bought shares, IP, domains, commercial rights or some combination
- how much it paid
- who received that payment
- what valuation was used and what exactly is now being transferred using treasury funding
These are routine acquisition due diligence questions. The treasury should not fund a second transaction without disclosure of the first one.
This is mainly an operating subsidy - The proposal requests approximately 10 million $ADA, but there is no separately identified purchase price for the IP, website, trademarks or domains
Approximately 75% is allocated to staffing, approximately 25% is allocated to operations & infrastructure and a small amount is allocated to legal and accounting work.
The community is therefore not being offered a clearly priced asset acquisition. It is being asked to pay for the continued operation of Blockfrost while ownership is transferred later to an entity that has not yet been finalized. Calling this a community takeover does not change the economics. It is an operating grant tied to a future transfer promise.
The staffing budget is excessive and not fully outlined.
The staffing request is $1,478,266 for six people over 18 months - four developers, one project manager and one community manager. That equals an average loaded cost of approximately:
$82,126 per month for the team
$13,688 per person per month
more than $164,000 per person annually (Does a community manager earn 164k annually?)Those are extremely high blended costs for a mostly European team containing both technical and non-technical positions. Yet the proposal does not disclose -cost by role, seniority, employee versus contractor status, related-party payments or the identity of the organization receiving the staffing funds.
"Privacy" is not a credible excuse for withholding role based costs. Nobody is asking for personal payslips. Public treasury funding requires transparent FTE assumptions and compensation. The proposal also places DevOps personnel inside the infrastructure allocation, creating further uncertainty over how many people are actually being funded and whether labour is being obscured inside multiple budget categories.
The expenditure will not end after 18 months The proposal annualizes to approximately $985,000 in staffing and overhead, $240,000 in infrastructure and operations, roughly $1.2 million in recurring yearly expenditure, before insurance, compliance, commercial support, sales, legal costs or expansion.
There is no demonstrated sustainability model.
Commercial tiers, vendor fees and treasury repayments are merely ideas that a future board may consider. The proposal admits that long-term sustainability will be decided after the community has already funded the transition. That means the treasury is being asked to commit first and discover the business model later.
The predictable result is another funding request when the 18 months expire.
Cardano governance cannot operate an enterprise API business
The proposal claims Blockfrost will become community owned and decentralized. But Cardano governance cannot itself
- sign an enterprise SLA
- employ staff
- invoice customers
- accept contractual liability
- provide indemnities
- hold commercial insurance
- enter data centre and hosting contracts
- manage tax and data protection obligations
- or be sued when the service fails.
A centralized legal entity will still own the assets, control the domain, employ or contract the team and sign commercial agreements. The proposal recognizes this by requiring a separate not-for-profit entity and an off-chain legal structure involving Intersect and Cardano Development Holdings.
Therefore, this is not "fully decentralized." At most, it is centralized legal and commercial control combined with community board elections. Those are not the same thing.
The SLA claims are weak - Enterprise customers require a legally accountable counterparty and detailed contractual protections covering uptime, response times, incident escalation, service credits, security, liability, indemnification and termination.
The public service is only promised at 99% monthly uptime, which permits more than seven hours of downtime per month. Calling that an SLA does not make it enterprise grade, particularly when no contractual remedies are specified.
The acquiring entity does not yet exist in final form
The proposal does not even determine whether the assets will move into a new entity or existing one. The final governance structure, legal jurisdiction, constitutional documents and permanent board are still to be decided.
No competent acquisition committee would approve such a transaction. This proposal is missing the most basic information required for a takeover:
Verified ownership, chain of title, prior transaction details, historical revenue, current paid customer data, an independent valuation, a stated purchase price, role based FTE costs, assignable enterprise contracts, a finalized acquiring entity, and a credible long term operating plan