{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"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.\n\nHowever, 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.\n\nI 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.\n\nIn 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\nFinally, 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."}}