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.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Almost ₳10M for 18 months to keep Blockfrost running and transitioning it into a community-run not-for-profit? On the surface, that sounds like a mission that supports decentralization, but the budget breakdown shows serious inefficiencies. Over 80% of the total funds are going to staffing, which means the average salaries and overhead costs are way too high for an API infrastructure. Plus, the $20k monthly infrastructure cost seems excessive given how established this service is.
The proposal's hopeful ideas about long-term sustainability haven't been proven and don't take into account the risks of vendor control or mission drift. A big issue here is the assumption that the community will accept paid tiers for a service that used to be free, without presenting any backup plans for when revenues don't meet expectations. Also, having a board that's mostly made up of insiders just tightens control, which goes against the whole decentralization goal.
Frankly, there are better options out there: decentralized node operators, Layer 2 solutions like Hydra, or getting multiple competing APIs on board could provide more stability at a much lower cost.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes984.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳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.
- No927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes920.9K ₳No rationale
- No884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes877.5K ₳No rationale
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost provides clear value to the ecosystem but the proposal does not provide a clear path to sustainability.
- No796.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes737.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged622K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes604.7K ₳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. - Yes591.1K ₳Rationale
Voting in favour as this brings long term value to the chain, which we really should support.
- No579.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.2K ₳No rationale
- No568K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost has got this on their own. Great team.
- Yes539.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain503.6K ₳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. - Yes488.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.6K ₳No rationale
- No433.2K ₳No rationale
- No393.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.5K ₳Rationale
Not-for-profit basic infrastructure is what the treasury should be for in my opinion.
This proposal is on the rather expensive side, but still a "Yes" from me.
I would welcome if Koios as a competitor in the same segment would also seek and get funding by the treasury.
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
Blockfrost was purchased by a major investor, somehow loses money even while dominating its product market, and is now being offloaded at a loss to the treasury via this governance action. It is not the treasury's responsibility to bail out failed businesses, especially while some great alternatives are popping up. The code is open-source, so if the current team would like it to be community maintained, it simply can be without the absurd price tag.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- No321.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
given that we did not fund gerolamo we still have a strong need for blockfrost. lots of apps currently depend on blockfrost.
- No285.2K ₳No rationale
- No275.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Blockfrost’s transformation to not-for-profit.” Blockfrost is clearly an important piece of Cardano’s current developer and application infrastructure, and the proposal is thoughtful in presentation, with a defined transition plan, governance structure, reporting commitments, and a stated intention to place the service under community stewardship rather than leave it as a purely commercial product. I also recognize the value Blockfrost has provided to the ecosystem and the practical role it plays for developers who do not want to run their own infrastructure.
However, I do not believe the proposal resolves the central problem it identifies. The application argues that the current ownership structure cannot sustainably operate a commercial business while maintaining a broad free public tier, but then proposes that a newly created not-for-profit, supported by a large Treasury subsidy, can continue operating a similar hybrid model and later reintroduce commercial offerings under community governance. In other words, the underlying cost and sustainability challenge does not disappear; it is simply transferred into a new legal wrapper and financed by the Treasury for 18 months while a future board determines what model comes next.
I am also not persuaded that “not-for-profit” status by itself meaningfully reduces the structural risks here. A not-for-profit can still operate with high fixed staffing costs, concentrated decision-making, and limited public visibility into how off-chain contracts and strategic decisions are made. The important Treasury question is not the legal form of the entity, but whether this proposal materially improves decentralization, resilience, transparency, and long-term sustainability in Cardano’s access layer. On that standard, I remain unconvinced.
In fact, one of the strongest arguments against the proposal appears in the proposal itself: Blockfrost already handles more than 50% of transaction submission in most epochs. That is evidence of importance, but it is also evidence of existing dependency and concentration. Treasury funding at this scale should ideally be used to reduce that dependence by improving provider diversity, open standards, failover capability, and easier use of multiple backends, rather than reinforcing a single dominant provider under a new governance label. Much of the software stack is already open-source, which further reduces the case that the Treasury is purchasing uniquely unavailable public infrastructure through this transition rather than paying primarily for continued operation, brand continuity, and organizational restructuring.
The budget request also raises proportionality concerns. Nearly 80% of the funding is allocated to staffing across six roles over 18 months, with additional operational and legal costs layered on top, yet the proposal provides limited role-by-role detail about what specific incremental public deliverables justify that level of ongoing expense for a service that is already operational. The result reads less like a tightly bounded public-good build and more like a large operating subsidy for an incumbent service while a future governance and business structure is worked out.
Finally, this proposal must be considered in the context of broader Treasury constraints. Under current NCL pressure and with remaining practical headroom already tight, I do not believe it is prudent to allocate nearly 10M ADA to a transition whose long-term sustainability remains uncertain and whose structural effect may be to preserve, rather than reduce, access-layer centralization. For these reasons, I am voting NO.
- Yes268.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes260.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes222.9K ₳No rationale
- No216.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes183.7K ₳No rationale