Withdraw ₳1,300,000 for Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal
200 DReps voted · 54 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 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.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
A high value investment in decentralization and open sourcing of key API infra.
- No 791.4K ₳ 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.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ 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.
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ 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. - No 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 587.1K ₳ 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.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ 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.
- Yes 385.6K ₳ 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.
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 379.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ 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 - Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ 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.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ 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.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ 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.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Given the unprecedented volume and technical depth of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a comprehensive, proposal-by-proposal audit of budgets, scopes, and implementation frameworks would demand a level of time and resourcing incompatible with the available review window.
Rather than abstaining from participation, I adopted a hybrid evaluation methodology that combines AI-assisted content parsing with structured human analysis. This standardized checklist framework was designed to streamline high-volume assessment while preserving critical reasoning, contextual understanding, and value-based judgment.
All final decisions reflect deliberate human oversight — AI outputs serve to accelerate comprehension and comparison, but no vote is cast without manual review and a principled assessment of relevance, feasibility, and accountability.
📋 Checklist Criteria Explained
Each proposal is evaluated across seven standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
❌ No — does not meet the criterion1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Does the proposal address a critical function within Cardano, or is it peripheral or redundant?
This criterion assesses the strategic relevance of the initiative. Proposals should contribute meaningfully to Cardano’s infrastructure, decentralization, usability, or long-term resilience. Initiatives that duplicate existing efforts or lack demonstrable alignment with ecosystem priorities may score lower.2️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Does the proposal define measurable success indicators or quantifiable outcomes?
This includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), numerical targets, milestones with metrics, or other tangible proxies of progress. The absence of quantifiable measures introduces uncertainty around potential impact and limits effective performance tracking.3️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Are there clear, time-bound milestones with verifiable deliverables and acceptance criteria?
Effective proposals define not only what will be delivered, but also when and how success will be verified. This enables staged disbursement, delivery monitoring, and community oversight. Lack of milestone clarity may indicate execution risk.4️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Is the proposing team clearly identified, with relevant expertise and a verifiable delivery history?
This criterion evaluates the transparency and credibility of the individuals or organizations responsible for delivery. Established contributors with proven ecosystem involvement are preferred. Anonymous or unvetted teams may raise accountability concerns.5️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Is the budget transparently structured, with clear categories, amounts, and justification?
A strong proposal includes itemized costs (e.g., per workstream, staff role, tooling), explains the rationale behind budget allocations, and clarifies estimation methods. Lack of detail in budget structure reduces transparency and erodes confidence in treasury stewardship.6️⃣ Internal Consistency
Are the on-chain metadata, proposal content, and budget details aligned?
Consistency across all proposal components — including funding amounts, receiving addresses, project scope, and references — is essential. Misalignment creates confusion, undermines credibility, and may signal governance process weaknesses.7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
Does this proposal present a potential conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the evaluation?
To preserve the integrity of the voting process, any proposal in which I (as evaluator) hold a significant, non-marginal conflict of interest will be automatically met with an ABSTAIN vote. Minor or indirect associations are disclosed where relevant, but only material conflicts — such as direct financial involvement, employment, or formal partnership — trigger abstention. This ensures all evaluations remain transparent, independent, and in service of the broader Cardano community.
🧭 Evaluation: Blockfrost Platform Community Budget Proposal (₳1,300,000)
📋 Checklist Evaluation
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
✅ Yes
“At its peak, Blockfrost was handling over 50% of all on-chain transactions on Cardano.”
“The demand for a reliable infrastructure and tools that support development is what led to the creation of Blockfrost.”Blockfrost plays a major infrastructural role in Cardano, providing an API gateway used by many dApps and developers. The proposal directly addresses the decentralization of this critical component, aligning with the Cardano Vision 2025.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
🟡 Partial
“We are requesting an annual budget of $120,000 to support one full-time employee (FTE)... Our total funding request from the treasury is $650,000, which is equivalent to approximately 1,300,000 ADA... This amounts to a total of 5 FTEs.”
“We estimate the cost of [a security audit] to be $50,000.”While the total ask and headcount are provided, there’s no line-by-line cost breakdown across categories like infrastructure, maintenance, R&D, UX, or documentation. The proposal lacks clarity on how the remaining $400,000+ is distributed beyond FTE and audit. More detailed cost attribution across operational areas would strengthen transparency.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
✅ Yes
“At least 100 active Icebreakers by end of year, 2025.”
“100% of transactions submitted through Blockfrost will be handled by the Icebreakers by end of year, 2025.”
“Quarterly updates provided on the SPO call.”
“Monthly community development call.”These KPIs are clear, quantitative, and time-bound, offering reasonable metrics to track decentralization progress and community engagement.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
✅ Yes
“All milestones are clearly documented and tracked on our Github roadmap to promote accountability and transparency.”
“Icebreakers era: Blockfrost platform initial release, Transaction submission endpoint, Gateway, Onboarding...”
“Hopper era: Hydra payment channels between platform and gateway...”The roadmap structure is commendable and publicly accessible. However, acceptance criteria per milestone are not disclosed in the on-chain submission or linked documentation. Publishing more granular, milestone-specific acceptance criteria would enhance community oversight and reduce ambiguity in future progress evaluations.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency
✅ Yes
ADA requested: ₳1,300,000
USD estimate: $650,000
Rate implied: 1 ADA = $0.50The metadata, funding amount, and SAC alignment are all consistent. No internal discrepancies observed.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
✅ Yes
“Marek: Primary project lead (part-time)
Beatrice: Community engagement lead
Vladimir: Gateway lead
Michal: Platform lead
Sefa: Caching lead
Bart: Conformance testing lead”The team is named with defined roles, and key members (e.g., Marek Mahut) are publicly known in the Cardano ecosystem. Blockfrost has a strong track record from previous infrastructure contributions, and the team appears technically capable of executing the work.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
✅ No significant conflict identified
No direct financial or employment ties between evaluator and vendor. Evaluation proceeds independently.
🧾 Summary
Blockfrost is a widely used API platform in the Cardano ecosystem, and this proposal seeks to decentralize its architecture through the Icebreakers program. It aims to redistribute traffic handling to SPOs, increase fault tolerance, and reduce centralization risks.
The proposal provides clear KPIs, a public roadmap, and names a qualified team. While the budget is generally reasonable for the scope, it lacks granular breakdown across functional areas (e.g., tooling, hosting, governance). The absence of granular milestone acceptance criteria slightly reduces auditability but is partially mitigated by the use of third-party assurers.
🗳️ Voting Recommendation: YES
Despite the partial score on budget structuring and the lack of public milestone acceptance criteria, the proposal presents a critical infrastructure improvement with open-source deliverables, decentralized architecture, and a strong operational team. The risks are manageable and the expected benefits — in terms of resilience, decentralization, and developer onboarding — are significant and measurable.
- Yes 257K ₳ 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.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale