Withdraw ₳1,300,000 for Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal
200 DReps voted · 62 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote · 8 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to yes, 2 to no, together voting with 35.5M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes1.3M ₳Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on the proposal to withdraw ₳1,300,000 to fund the Blockfrost Platform community budget. Blockfrost provides critical infrastructure that enables developers to build on Cardano without having to run and maintain their own nodes, significantly lowering the barrier to entry and accelerating ecosystem growth. This proposal outlines a broad commitment to making the service freely available to the community, which directly supports decentralized application development and experimentation. Given its proven utility, wide adoption, and the potential to amplify developer activity across the ecosystem, I believe this funding represents a high-leverage investment of Treasury resources.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Blockfrost is critical infrastructure but currently too centralized, risking Cardano’s core values. The Icebreakers initiative offers a promising decentralization approach but lacks measurable milestones, clear impact metrics, and a phased, accountable roadmap.
₳1.3 million is a significant ask without sufficient proof of concept or alternatives considered. I vote NO. The proposal needs sharper KPIs, delivery milestones, independent validation, and risk mitigation before treasury funds should be committed.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- Abstain884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes796.1K ₳Rationale
A high value investment in decentralization and open sourcing of key API infra.
- Yes742.6K ₳No rationale
- No678.7K ₳Rationale
While Blockfrost may in fact be the backbone of many web-apps, this proposal spends most of the time explaining what Blockfrost is and little describing what such a budget allocation would be utilized on. Instead of requiring funds to ensure they can distribute their dominance, the decentralization of APIs is already upon us- alternatives like Koios have existed in parallel, and APIs like ANVIL are likely to shift the dynamics that the proposer builds their case from.
- Yes663.8K ₳Rationale
We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output: Advancing Decentralised Community Innovation Funding & Infrastructure, administered via intersect. It is crucial for smaller development teams—especially those excluded by current thresholds—to be able to contribute to and grow with Cardano, as this grassroots onboarding drives innovation and problem-solving that fuels the ecosystem’s broader growth.
- Yes657.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - Yes591.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes574.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.2K ₳Rationale
Many Cardano dApps rely on Blockfrost for accessing on-chain data. While Blockfrost has served the ecosystem well, its centralized nature creates a potential bottleneck and single point of failure — something that contradicts the long-term vision of Cardano's decentralized infrastructure.
This proposal introduces an open-source, decentralized alternative built on top of Blockfrost. By enabling the community to access on-chain data without relying solely on a centralized service, it strengthens the ecosystem’s resilience and promotes healthy infrastructure pluralism.While I believe the requested amount is relatively high — especially considering that Blockfrost has received prior investment from IOG and operates on a revenue model — I still vote YES because the strategic value of decentralizing access to on-chain data outweighs the cost concern. The proposal contributes directly to the robustness and sustainability of Cardano’s developer ecosystem.
- No550.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted479.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes478.5K ₳Rationale
I vote Yes, this proposal cuts dependence on a single API by shifting traffic to the Icebreaker network run by stake‑pool operators, bolsters the Blockfrost service that many Cardano builders rely on, and adds Hydra‑based micropayments for lightweight, future‑proof scaling and revenue. It supports Cardano’s decentralisation and technical roadmap.
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes388.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes371K ₳Rationale
Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals
As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.
This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:
When I Voted Yes
I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:
Relevance
The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.Reasonableness of Budget
The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.Credibility of the Team
Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.
When I Voted No or did not vote
I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:
- Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
- Justification regarding budgets
- Weak or unknown team background
- Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency
In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.
When I Abstained
I have chosen to Abstain when:
- The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
- There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
- There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway
Summary
This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.
I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.
List of Proposals and My Vote
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes - No356.1K ₳Rationale
This vote aligns with my Ekklesia votes, where I voted yes to the highest priority budget line items that fit within my preferred 200m ADA budget, abstained from voting on any line items that I may have had personal interests in, and voted no to everything else.
- Yes338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes329.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.1K ₳Rationale
As Krypto Labs, engaged in the 2025 budget process since February, I am voting YES on the ₳1,300,000 Blockfrost Platform proposal.
This decision stems from Blockfrost's critical role in simplifying blockchain access, having powered most of transactions at peak on Cardano, and the urgent need to decentralize it via the Icebreakers program.The proposal's strengths open sourcing components, rewarding SPOs with revenue sharing, and integrating for micropayments directly address centralization risks while empowering developers and operators.
Milestones like 100 active Icebreakers by year end, tracked transparently on GitHub with audits, ensure accountability. Community endorsements from DReps emphasize its alignment with core engineering, decentralization priorities and potentially boosting adoption.My involvement in workshops revealed Blockfrost's ecosystem value; approving this accelerates a resilient, SPO-driven network, fostering Cardano's growth without excessive risk.
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes313.8K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund the Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal. This initiative supports decentralization of a critical API service through the Icebreakers program, empowering SPOs and node operators to deliver Cardano data in a more distributed, resilient way.
This aligns with my priorities as a DRep: strengthening open-source infrastructure, reducing centralization risks, and supporting long-term sustainability for developers building on Cardano.
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on the Treasury Withdrawal titled Blockfrost Platform Community Budget Proposal (₳1,300,000) based on its strong support during the Ekklesia budget phase (3.18B ADA voting in favor) and full compliance with Article IV of the Cardano Constitution.
This proposal supports the Icebreakers Era, an evolution of the Blockfrost API from centralized backend to an open-source, SPO-powered infrastructure layer. By allowing trusted community node operators to run profitable Blockfrost endpoints and route traffic via the Gateway system, the platform decentralizes API access and empowers SPOs directly.
The technical controls around funding meet or exceed expectations:
Funds administers via audited smart contracts (Sundae Labs)
Fund flows executed only after legal contracts + milestone approval
Protected by a multisig oversight committee, and non-staking "auto-abstain" modeling
Strategic benefits of this funding include enhanced access for dApp and mobile developers, enterprise-level private deployment (Solitary mode), and ADA-based micro-payment APIs using Hydra settlement channels.
The ₳1.3M budget is proportionate and compares favorably with infrastructure proposals of similar scope. All code will be open-sourced, ensuring zero vendor lock-in. I recommend approval of this proposal to ensure robust, sovereign API access for Cardano while supporting SPO viability and decentralization goals.
- Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes263.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes252.7K ₳Rationale
- NoChanged236.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded