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.
- YesChanged9.5M ₳Rationale
Vote changed: NO → YES
After revisiting the proposal, I’ve changed my vote to YES.
While I’m generally conservative with treasury spending, Blockfrost stands out as one of the lower-risk proposals before us. It already provides critical infrastructure relied upon by a significant portion of the Cardano ecosystem, has an established track record of delivery, and this proposal supports transitioning that infrastructure into a community-governed public good rather than expanding a commercial business.
My previous concerns have not disappeared. I still believe the nearly ₳10M cost is substantial, and I’d like to see a clearer long-term sustainability model beyond the initial 18-month transition so the nonprofit is not expected to rely on ongoing treasury support. Those remain important areas for improvement.
Upon further reflection, I also don’t want to see other major ecosystem initiatives delayed, disrupted, or forced to solve infrastructure challenges because a foundational service like Blockfrost is not there to support them. Regardless of differing views on specific usage metrics, it has become deeply embedded across the Cardano developer ecosystem, and maintaining that continuity carries meaningful value.
I agree that Blockfrost should not become a permanently protected single provider, and I still want a clearer path to sustainability, open operation, and provider diversity. But rejecting the transition does not itself create that diversified future. It may instead introduce significant disruption to infrastructure that many builders already rely on. Upon reflection, I believe maintaining continuity under community governance is the lower-risk decision today, while continuing to push for a more open and plural data-access layer afterward.
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
I recognize Blockfrost’s importance within the Cardano ecosystem and appreciate the effort to transition it into a community-governed public good. However, at nearly ₳10M, I cannot justify this request against other competing priorities for treasury funding. This is not a judgment on Blockfrost’s utility or the team’s intentions; rather, it reflects my view that limited treasury resources require difficult prioritization, and this proposal does not rise high enough on that list to warrant support.
Furthermore, while the proposal outlines potential paths toward long-term sustainability, the operating model beyond the 18-month transition remains largely to be determined by a future board. I would have preferred to see a more clearly defined path toward self-sufficiency before committing treasury funds.
- Yes8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Blockfrost’s transformation to not-for-profit.
RCADA previously abstained on Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing. That abstention was not opposition to Blockfrost. RCADA recognised Blockfrost as important Cardano infrastructure and saw merit in decentralised indexing, but the previous proposal combined public-good infrastructure development with an operational subsidy for a private provider’s free-tier infrastructure. RCADA also disclosed that it participated in Blockfrost API service provision and received income from that activity, making abstention the most appropriate position at that time.
This new proposal materially changes the governance question. Rather than asking the Treasury to support Blockfrost as a private commercial service, it proposes transferring Blockfrost source code, trademarks, domains, and associated assets into community stewardship under an independent, community-governed not-for-profit. It also proposes maintaining a free public API for Cardano mainnet, preview, and preprod, with public dashboards, board oversight, quarterly reporting, and a path toward long-term sustainability.
RCADA supports this direction because Blockfrost is widely used developer infrastructure. Reliable, low-friction access to Cardano data is a genuine ecosystem public good. Many developers, wallets, dApps, tools, and smaller projects rely on hosted infrastructure because they cannot reasonably operate their own full indexing and submission stack. Keeping a free, reliable public API available can lower barriers to entry, support developer experience, and help protect existing applications from disruption.
RCADA also recognises that the previous commercial/public-good tension appears to be directly addressed here. The proposal states that Blockfrost considered either becoming fully commercial or fully public-good, and chose the public-good path because raising prices or removing the free tier would harm adoption. Moving Blockfrost into a not-for-profit structure with community governance, public reporting, and transferred intellectual property is a meaningful improvement over funding an ordinary private free-tier subsidy.
That said, RCADA’s support is not unconditional. The request is large at 9,832,979 ADA over 18 months, and Blockfrost’s importance also reveals a centralisation risk. A large share of Cardano development and transaction submission flowing through one access layer is both evidence of value and a reason for caution. The transition should reduce dependency and strengthen decentralised operation, not merely preserve a single dominant hosted endpoint under a new legal wrapper.
RCADA also continues to recognise conflict and perception risk because of our prior disclosed relationship with Blockfrost API service provision. This YES vote is based on the proposal’s structural change toward community ownership and not-for-profit stewardship. RCADA expects that any continued or future service-provider relationships, including Icebreaker participation, should be handled transparently under the not-for-profit’s governance, procurement, and conflict-of-interest rules.
RCADA expects the transfer of Blockfrost source code, trademarks, domains, and associated assets to be legally completed and publicly verifiable. The board election process should be transparent, community-legible, and verifiable on-chain where applicable. The preliminary board should act only as a transition body and should not become a permanent unelected governance layer.
RCADA also expects the not-for-profit to publish clear infrastructure-cost data, usage metrics, uptime performance, API request volume, budget summaries, and quarterly reports. Sustainability planning must be treated as a core deliverable, not deferred indefinitely. Any future commercial offering or vendor-backed model should protect the free public API, avoid unfair vendor capture, and return benefits to the Cardano community as described.
RCADA views this as a transition mandate, not a permanent operating subsidy. The 18-month funding period should result in a legally completed community-stewardship structure, public accountability, decentralised operation, and a credible sustainability model that reduces the need for recurring Treasury support.
On balance, RCADA believes this proposal meets the standard for support because it responds constructively to earlier concerns, protects critical developer access infrastructure, and attempts to move Blockfrost from a commercial dependency into a community-governed public good. RCADA votes YES while expecting rigorous transition governance, transparent accounting, independent assurance, open board processes, real decentralisation through operators, and a credible path away from recurring Treasury dependency.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - No8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting YES
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v11 – v11 Intelligent Risk, Protected Infrastructure & Ecosystem Coordination Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NzqqbqteMl_ZLta3_p-05nZfyyNvsuptCPzTZIsW1lc/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
Vote: Yes. I started this assessment from zero and made the proposal earn every point. Blockfrost clears the bar because Cardano receives a real public asset, not just a promise of future ecosystem benefit. The proposal asks for ₳9,832,979 to move Blockfrost into a free, community-governed not-for-profit, with source code, trademarks, domains, and associated assets transferred into community stewardship. Blockfrost already matters to Cardano builders: the proposal reports heavy API usage, widespread developer adoption, more than 100 Icebreakers, and more than 50% of transactions submitted through Blockfrost in most epochs. The team also has strong public delivery evidence: its earlier Catalyst proposal to open-source Blockfrost is marked complete, IOG announced a strategic investment in Blockfrost in 2024 to support decentralization, and the Blockfrost GitHub organization shows active public repositories. The ask is large, and the sustainability model still depends on the future board choosing the right commercial or vendor-backed structure. That lowers the score. But the proposal still reaches a plain Yes because the main Treasury return is not speculative revenue. It is the transfer of critical access infrastructure into community-governed public ownership, supported by milestones, third-party assurance, public reporting, refund rules, and smart-contract-based fund administration.
Category Weight Score from zero Assessment Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 12 Blockfrost is core developer access infrastructure. Keeping it free and moving it into community stewardship addresses a real ecosystem dependency. Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 7 The team has shipped, operated, and open-sourced real infrastructure. The earlier Catalyst open-sourcing proposal is marked complete, and public repositories remain active. Price versus value 6 4 ₳9.83 million is expensive. The budget is understandable, but staff costs dominate the ask and the price only makes sense because the Treasury receives the infrastructure asset. Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 7 Prior delivery evidence is strong. The proposal also discloses prior Treasury receipts, including Blockfrost-related funds already received. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 12 This is the strongest category. The proposal commits to transferring source code, trademarks, domains, and associated assets to a community-governed not-for-profit. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 10 The public asset is the main Treasury return. Future commercial revenue return is weaker because it depends on later board decisions, so I do not give full credit. Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 12 The proposal has staged milestones, third-party assurance, public dashboards, quarterly reporting, refund conditions, and smart-contract administration. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 10 The main risks are governance transition, sustainability after 18 months, and central dependency during migration. The public transfer and open/forkable design reduce the downside. Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 The proposal gives plausible sustainability paths, including paid tiers or a vendor-backed model, but the final model is not locked yet. Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 8 Funding one provider is normally risky, but the proposal avoids a private tollbooth by transferring ownership, using community governance, and involving Icebreakers and ecosystem operators. Base score 100 88 Ecosystem Coordination Premium +5 max +2 Real coordination exists through Icebreakers, SPO/node operators, and named ecosystem infrastructure participants, but not every future vendor role is fully specified yet. DRep Conviction Adjustment ±5 max 0 No extra subjective adjustment. The proposal must pass on earned points alone. Final score 100 90 Vote: Yes. This reaches the very-large-proposal bar because the Treasury receives exceptional public-asset value: critical infrastructure transferred into community-governed ownership. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged6.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- No6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is already critical Cardano developer infrastructure, and the proposal meaningfully converts it into a community-governed public good. The transfer of source code, trademarks, domains, and associated assets justifies treasury support more strongly than a normal operating subsidy. My support is based on enforceable IP transfer, transparent board elections, public cost and revenue dashboards, quarterly reporting, milestone-based disbursement, and a credible sustainability plan before the end of the 18-month period.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.2M ₳Rationale
We propose a YES vote for the proposal to transform Blockfrost into a non-profit organization, as this is the right step for a critical infrastructure of Cardano.
First, Blockfrost is not a small project; it's the data access layer through which over 50% of on-chain transactions in most epochs pass, and it's the most widely used hosted platform by developers (71.5% according to a 2025 survey). Leaving this critical infrastructure dependent on a single commercial entity poses a systemic risk to the entire ecosystem.
Second, the proposal addresses the very issue the community previously opposed: instead of funding a commercial enterprise, this time the entire source code, brand, and domain name are permanently transferred to a community-governed non-profit organization with a publicly elected on-chain board.
Third, there is a clear, sustainable roadmap after funding, a parallel commercial model (profits returned to the Treasury) or a vendor-linked model, which reduces dependence on long-term funding, instead of requesting money indefinitely.
Fourth, a robust monitoring mechanism: a public dashboard, quarterly reports, reimbursement of unused budget, and clear quarterly milestones.
The cost of approximately $1.87 million for 18 months is reasonable given the scale and importance of this infrastructure. - Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "Blockfrost's Transformation to Not-for-Profit" (gov_action12su...457vgq), pois, embora reconheçamos a importância da Blockfrost como uma infraestrutura amplamente utilizada por desenvolvedores e aplicações do ecossistema Cardano, entendemos que o pedido de ₳9.832.979 para um período de 18 meses ainda não demonstra de forma suficientemente convincente uma relação custo-benefício compatível com o investimento solicitado. A concentração de grande parte do orçamento em despesas com pessoal, aliada ao detalhamento limitado sobre funções específicas, entregas esperadas e custos operacionais, dificulta avaliar se os recursos solicitados são proporcionais aos objetivos da transição para uma entidade sem fins lucrativos. Reconhecemos que a proposta incorpora mecanismos relevantes de governança, controle e transparência, incluindo desembolsos condicionados ao cumprimento de marcos, relatórios trimestrais, painel público de acompanhamento, supervisão independente e devolução ao Tesouro de recursos não utilizados. No entanto, entendemos que esses mecanismos não respondem à principal questão estratégica levantada pela proposta: o financiamento isolado do provedor atualmente dominante pode reforçar a dependência existente, em vez de incentivar maior diversidade de provedores, redundância de infraestrutura e descentralização da camada de acesso ao ecossistema Cardano. Por esses motivos, entendemos que, embora a Blockfrost desempenhe um papel importante para a rede, o financiamento proposto não demonstra de forma suficiente que representa a melhor utilização dos recursos da Tesouraria neste momento.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "Blockfrost's Transformation to Not-for-Profit" (gov_action12su...457vgq), because although we recognize Blockfrost as an important infrastructure provider widely used by developers and applications across the Cardano ecosystem, we believe the requested ₳9,832,979 over an 18-month period does not yet demonstrate a sufficiently compelling cost-benefit case. The concentration of a large share of the budget in personnel expenses, combined with limited detail regarding specific roles, expected deliverables, and operational costs, makes it difficult to determine whether the requested funding is proportionate to the objectives of transitioning to a not-for-profit organization. We acknowledge that the proposal includes meaningful governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms, such as milestone-based disbursements, quarterly reporting, a public monitoring dashboard, independent oversight, and the return of any unused Treasury funds. However, we believe these safeguards do not address the proposal's central strategic concern: funding the ecosystem's already dominant access provider in isolation may reinforce existing dependence rather than encourage greater provider diversity, infrastructure redundancy, and decentralization of Cardano’s access layer. For these reasons, while we recognize Blockfrost’s important contribution to the ecosystem, we do not believe the proposal has sufficiently demonstrated that this funding represents the best use of Treasury resources at this time. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳Rationale
While I accept that Blockfrost currently has a vital role in the ecosystem, I see the proposal as an expensive shakedown that feels too close to economic blackmail. I can accept that the team can't continue what has been the previous situation, and if the proposal was priced with salaries which reflected a sense of shared going through tough times, I would have been more lenient. As it is, it sits with me as a shakedown, and the only rational move when someone shakes you down is take the pain and say no. Doing anything else simply further encourages bad behavior.
Our current governance is not fit for purpose to handle the rigors of negotiations with vendors, and when vendors look to capitalize on that obvious fact to their advantage I have to fight against it. This smells of a cash-grab, and for that reason I resist it.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- No3M ₳Rationale
This is a very dangerous and exploitative proposal that I am voting NO on. Framed as a gift to the Cardano community, Blockfrost has already been funded by the Cardano treasury multiple times before being bought by IOG.
There is an extreme lack of clarity with this proposal about exactly what ADA holders are paying for here, and who actually owns what with regards to Blockfrost, and what assets the treasury will take ownership of.
The majority of this proposal is paying for salaries of individuals who will be providing ongoing maintenance and development of Blockfrost after the transition - this to me is very unsettling, as this a heavy ongoing maintenance cost for a team that is not being chosen by ADA holders, but being "gifted" to the treasury at the cost of almost 8 Million ADA (possibly per year) as an ongoing cost. Whatever we are paying for, the majority of it is not going towards acquiring the actual Blockfrost legal assets.
Also as stated in prior voting, if Charles Hoskinson continues to behave abusively towards DReps, Cardano Community members, and Builders, I will vote NO on any future IOG proposals. This behavior has sadly continued, so I am now voting NO on all future IOG proposals.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged2.7M ₳Rationale
Current Rationale: I am changing from a NO to ABSTAIN on this proposal. I firmly believe in the team behind this and understand their current situation. This is essential for Cardano, but my previous rationale still applies, so i simply cannot vote YES out of principal. I do not want to be a blocker of this proposal.
Previous Rationale: Although there is no doubt in my mind Blockfrost is the go to solution in Cardano, I must vote NO on this proposal.
18 months is a bit longer than I am comfortable with funding. I also believe that the funding scope is not properly broken down. I would like to see FTE rates and overhead costs to have a clearer understanding of how the money will be used.
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
Although there is no doubt in my mind Blockfrost is the go to solution in Cardano, I must vote NO on this proposal.
18 months is a bit longer than I am comfortable with funding. I also believe that the funding scope is not properly broken down. I would like to see FTE rates and overhead costs to have a clearer understanding of how the money will be used.
- YesChanged2.7M ₳Rationale
私は、本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Blockfrostは、Cardanoの開発者、ウォレット、dApp、取引所、ガバナンスツールにとって重要なアクセスレイヤーです。私は、その知的財産と運営をコミュニティ統治の非営利組織へ移管し、公開報告、マイルストーン管理、Icebreakersによる分散運用を進める本提案を支持します。
一方で、多くのエポックでCardanoトランザクションの50％以上がBlockfrost経由とされる状況は、その重要性と同時に集中リスクも示しています。CardanoにはKoios、Ogmios/Kupo、Dolos、UTxO RPC、Oura、Maestro、自前ノード運用など複数の選択肢があり、Blockfrost支援は、それらに代わるものではなく、インフラ多様化戦略の一部であるべきです。
本提案は、重要なインフラを維持し、コミュニティ管理と分散運用へ移行するための現実的な橋渡しになると考えます。今後も代替プロバイダー、オープンスタンダード、自前運用を支援し、単一のアクセス経路への依存を減らすことを期待します。
以上の理由から、私は本提案に賛成票を投じます。
I vote YES on this Treasury Withdrawal.
Blockfrost is an important access layer for Cardano developers, wallets, dApps, exchanges, and governance tools. I support this proposal to transfer its intellectual property and operations to a community-governed nonprofit organization, with public reporting, milestone-based oversight, and further decentralization through Icebreakers.
At the same time, the claim that more than 50% of Cardano transactions have been submitted through Blockfrost in many epochs also shows a concentration risk. Cardano already has other access-layer options, including Koios, Ogmios/Kupo, Dolos, UTxO RPC, Oura, Maestro, and self-hosted nodes. Supporting Blockfrost should therefore be part of a broader infrastructure-diversity strategy, not a replacement for these alternatives.
I believe this proposal offers a practical bridge to preserve important infrastructure while moving it toward community control and more decentralized operation. I also expect continued support for alternative providers, open standards, and self-hosted solutions to reduce dependence on any single access point.
For these reasons, I vote YES.
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに反対します。
Blockfrostが、Cardano開発者、wallet、dApp、explorer、governance toolingにとって重要なaccess layerであることは認めます。また、community-governed public goodへの移行、IP移管、公開レポート、Icebreakersによる分散運用の方向性も評価します。
しかし、Cardanoが重んじるべき価値は、単一の強力な入口を公共財化することだけではなく、複数の選択肢が並存するインフラ多様性を守ることだと考えます。公共財化しても、その多様性が自動的に守られるわけではありません。
Cardanoには、Blockfrost以外にも、Koios、Ogmios/Kupo、Dolos、UTxO RPC、Oura、Maestro、自前node運用など複数のaccess layerがあります。本提案は、多くのepochでCardano transactionsの50%以上がBlockfrost経由でsubmitされていると述べています。これはBlockfrostの重要性を示す一方で、access layer集中リスクの証拠でもあります。
私は、Blockfrostが重要すぎるからこそ、Treasury資金はBlockfrostを維持するだけでなく、Blockfrost依存を下げ、Cardano全体のaccess diversityを高める方向にも使われるべきだと考えます。
I vote NO on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I recognize that Blockfrost is an important access layer for Cardano developers, wallets, dApps, explorers, and governance tooling. I also value the direction of transitioning Blockfrost into a community-governed public good, including IP transfer, public reporting, and decentralized operation through Icebreakers.
However, I believe Cardano should protect infrastructure diversity, not only turn one strong access point into a public good. Public-good status does not automatically preserve that diversity.
Cardano already has multiple access-layer options, including Koios, Ogmios/Kupo, Dolos, UTxO RPC, Oura, Maestro, and self-hosted nodes. The proposal also states that, in many epochs, more than 50% of Cardano transactions are submitted through Blockfrost. This shows Blockfrost’s importance, but it also shows a concentration risk at the access layer.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Go for it!
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I recognise Blockfrost as important Cardano infrastructure and I appreciate the effort to move it toward a community-governed, not-for-profit public-good model. However, I am voting NO because I do not believe this proposal resolves the core sustainability problem.
Moving Blockfrost into a not-for-profit structure changes who bears the cost, but it does not remove the cost. Servers, operations, maintenance, development and support still need to be paid for. This proposal funds an 18-month runway, but the long-term model after that period remains too uncertain. In practice, this risks turning Blockfrost into a recurring treasury-funded operating expense.
Under the current NCL constraint and with many competing treasury requests, I believe limited funds should be prioritised for actions with clearer exit paths, stronger self-sustainability plans, and more defined post-funding accountability. I would be open to reconsidering a future proposal that provides a concrete long-term revenue/vendor model, decentralisation milestones, and a clearer plan to avoid ongoing treasury dependency.
This is not a rejection of Blockfrost’s value. It is a vote for treasury discipline and sustainable public-good funding.
- Yes2M ₳Rationale
for the memes
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
BKIND votes Yes on Blockfrost's transformation to a community owned nonprofit. I judge it on what I can verify on chain: a single treasury transfer of the code, trademarks and domains into community ownership under an elected board. Usage figures I cannot independently confirm are left out.
Action: TreasuryWithdrawal 5439b614162543...9997#0, Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit, requesting the withdrawal of a total of 9,832,979 ada from the treasury.
I vote Yes. This treasury withdrawal is not a subsidy to a private company. It funds a single transfer of Blockfrost into community ownership, and for a DRep whose measure is decentralisation as mutual enablement, that is what the treasury exists for.
I judge this action only on what I can verify. The facts below come from the action's own data recorded on the chain and from the proposal metadata whose hash is anchored on the chain, both of which anyone can reproduce independently. I have deliberately left out the project's usage statistics, its request volumes, traffic share and free tier proportion, because I cannot independently confirm them. A rationale should rest on what can be checked, not on the proposer's own numbers.
What earns my Yes is the structure of the action itself. Blockfrost's source code, trademarks, and domains are committed to an independent nonprofit, governed by the community. It is to be directed by a board the community elects, with four seats for open source infrastructure teams and one open community seat, while Input Output steps back to a purely advisory role with no vote during the transition. The proposal also commits to publishing operating costs on a public dashboard under that board's approval. Its proposed path to sustainability has any future commercial tier run by the nonprofit, with profits returned to the Cardano treasury, turning this withdrawal from a gift into an investment the ecosystem can be repaid on.
Critics argue that an incumbent with prior ecosystem funding should not receive more, and that the treasury should not pick winners. Those are fair questions, and they argue for exactly this design rather than against it. Open accounting, community control, and an irreversible handover are the conditions I want attached to public money before it is spent, and this action attaches them. The alternative is to let this infrastructure quietly turn commercial again or decay.
A public good placed under community ownership, with its costs made open and its upside returned to the treasury. On that verifiable basis, I vote Yes.
I vote Yes on Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit (govActionId 5439b614162543...9997#0).
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- YesChanged1.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I support transitioning Blockfrost into a community-owned public good.
- YesChanged1.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳Rationale
BlockFrost has been pivotal to our team's infrastructure for 6 years without a single lapse in service. They are one of the most, if not THE most, reliable data providers on Cardano. We are not voting YES out of a bias to avoid changing our tech stack -- but our history with BlockFrost does give us confidence in our vote to support them. There may be competitors, but high-throughput data infrastructure is not a commodity; not all companies have the same offerings and capabilities. We do not have enough confidence in other data providers to readily sunset BlockFrost, and that does not even factor in all of the existing companies that utilize BlockFrost and would need to either migrate to another provider or shut down their Cardano integrations.
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged1.2M ₳Rationale
Following clarification regarding the allocation of funds, I will reassess my vote. I am changing my vote from affirmative to negative due to the lack of clarity surrounding Blockfrost's ownership, management, and decision-making processes.
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on "Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit" because Blockfrost is critical Cardano infrastructure and transferring its code, trademarks, domains and related assets to a community-governed nonprofit is a valid public-good use of Treasury funds. My support is not an endorsement of the excessive FTE costs: the team should manage the ₳9.83M as the full ADA budget for 18 months, not as USD-protected payroll. Teams funded in ADA should share Cardano's currency risk and upside, so I would reject a later top-up caused by ADA/USD moves or poor reserve management. This YES gives neither Blockfrost nor competing API providers an entitlement to similar grants; future requests must prove exceptional public value, transparent costs, provider diversity and no recurring Treasury dependence. I expect enforceable asset transfer, independent milestone verification, public budget and usage reporting, conflict-aware governance and unused funds returned to the Treasury.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale