{"@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":"Vote changed: NO → YES\n\nAfter revisiting the proposal, I’ve changed my vote to YES.\n\nWhile I’m generally conservative with treasury spending, Blockfrost stands out as one of the lower-risk proposals before us. It already provides critical infrastructure relied upon by a significant portion of the Cardano ecosystem, has an established track record of delivery, and this proposal supports transitioning that infrastructure into a community-governed public good rather than expanding a commercial business.\n\nMy previous concerns have not disappeared. I still believe the nearly ₳10M cost is substantial, and I’d like to see a clearer long-term sustainability model beyond the initial 18-month transition so the nonprofit is not expected to rely on ongoing treasury support. Those remain important areas for improvement.\n\nUpon further reflection, I also don’t want to see other major ecosystem initiatives delayed, disrupted, or forced to solve infrastructure challenges because a foundational service like Blockfrost is not there to support them. Regardless of differing views on specific usage metrics, it has become deeply embedded across the Cardano developer ecosystem, and maintaining that continuity carries meaningful value. \n\nI agree that Blockfrost should not become a permanently protected single provider, and I still want a clearer path to sustainability, open operation, and provider diversity. But rejecting the transition does not itself create that diversified future. It may instead introduce significant disruption to infrastructure that many builders already rely on. Upon reflection, I believe maintaining continuity under community governance is the lower-risk decision today, while continuing to push for a more open and plural data-access layer afterward."}}