Blockfrost's transformation to not-for-profit
146 DReps voted · 42 with a rationale · 11 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- AbstainChanged2.8M ₳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
No24d 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.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.6M ₳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
No19d 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!
- Yes2.1M ₳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.
- Yes2.1M ₳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 ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I support transitioning Blockfrost into a community-owned public good.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain22d agoSuperseded
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
for the memes
- Yes1.6M ₳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.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- 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
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because Blockfrost is critical developer infrastructure for the Cardano ecosystem. Many wallets, dApps, developers and infrastructure providers rely on Blockfrost to access Cardano data and submit transactions without having to operate their own full infrastructure. Keeping this access reliable, scalable and affordable is important for developer experience, application uptime and ecosystem growth.
We especially support the proposed transition of Blockfrost into a community-governed not-for-profit public good. This addresses a major concern around treasury funding for commercial infrastructure and creates a path toward broader community stewardship, public reporting, and long-term sustainability. While the requested amount is significant, Blockfrost is already widely used and operationally important. Losing or weakening the free public API layer would create friction for builders and could harm adoption. For that reason, we believe supporting this transition is a reasonable and strategic investment into Cardano’s developer infrastructure.
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes891.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes875.7K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost provides clear value to the ecosystem but the proposal does not provide a clear path to sustainability.
- YesChanged798.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No26d agoSuperseded
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- No794.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes747.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
Voting YES. Blockfrost serves 71.5% of Cardano developers and submits 50%+ of all transactions. Transitioning it to a community-governed not-for-profit with full IP transfer is the right structure. Risk of losing this infrastructure outweighs transition uncertainty.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This proposal transitions Blockfrost currently the most widely used Cardano API infrastructure, from IOG stewardship into a community-governed not-for-profit. Blockfrost currently serves 71.5% of Cardano developers, handles 1.84 billion API requests per month, and submits over 50% of all Cardano transactions in most epochs.
The funding covers an 18-month transition period to establish community governance, transfer all intellectual property (source code, trademarks, domains), and maintain operations while a sustainable long-term model is developed.
This proposal addresses the core objections to Blockfrost's earlier funding request. The governance structure is genuinely community-centric, the amount is proportionate to the infrastructure's importance, and the transparency mechanisms are robust. The sustainability question is real but appropriately deferred to the elected board rather than dictated upfront. The risk of not funding and losing or degrading the primary developer API serving 50%+ of network transactions, outweighs the uncertainty of the transition. - YesChanged619.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain12d agoSuperseded
- No605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Voting in favour as this brings long term value to the chain, which we really should support.
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes537.8K ₳No rationale
- No533.9K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has got this on their own. Great team.
- Abstain501K ₳Rationale
I supported Blockfrost’s work before, and my view of its importance has not changed. Half this ecosystem reads the chain through it, and keeping that access free and open is a goal I share without hesitation. Turning it into a community-owned public good is the right destination.
My hesitation is with this particular vehicle. ₳9.8M is a large sum for what is described as a one-time transition, and the proposal blends transfer costs with operating subsidy in a way that makes the true price of each hard to see. The sequencing gives me pause too. Funds arrive at ratification, while the elected board meant to oversee them arrives in Q4 and the irreversible IP transfer in Q1 2027. I would have preferred the governance to exist before the money does.
None of that rises to blocking a genuine attempt to protect infrastructure we all use. So I will not vote against the direction, but I cannot add my weight behind this structure either.
Abstaining, and hoping the transition succeeds well enough to prove my caution unnecessary. - Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes448.2K ₳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 5439b6141625436ccf600f910bb0b3301b6288933a2cdf7939758848ae8b9997#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 5439b6141625436ccf600f910bb0b3301b6288933a2cdf7939758848ae8b9997#0).
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.7K ₳No rationale
- No431.7K ₳No rationale