[GP-24] GC Membership Application of Alchemy

[Surag_Sheth]

1. Name of Applicant

Alchemy Insights, Inc.

2. Introduction of Applicant

Alchemy is the leading Web3 developer platform. We power over $1 trillion in annualized on-chain transaction value for companies including J.P. Morgan, Visa, Stripe, Robinhood, Coinbase, Circle, and Shopify, and serve 2M+ developers across 100+ networks.

Our platform spans the full stack that modern onchain applications need: multi-region RPC and WebSocket infrastructure with 99.99% uptime, Enhanced Data APIs (Token, NFT, Portfolio, Transfers, Webhooks), Smart Wallets and account abstraction (ERC-4337 bundlers and paymasters), and AgentPay for agentic commerce. We are backed by a16z, Lightspeed, Silver Lake, Coatue, and Pantera.

3. Objectives of Participating in the Kaia Governance Council

Kaia has built a distribution moat unmatched in Web3 through native LINE and Kakao integration, reaching 250M+ consumers across Asia. To turn that distribution into sustained ecosystem growth, builders need institutional-grade infrastructure: RPC that does not degrade under viral load, indexed data APIs that ship in days, and account abstraction that hides blockchain complexity from end users.

This is the layer Alchemy provides on every major ecosystem we serve, and we want to bring it to Kaia in a formal governance capacity. As a GC member, Alchemy will operate a validator, contribute to network decentralization and uptime, and represent the developer perspective in technical roadmap, fee mechanic, and infrastructure-related KGP discussions.

4. Your Commitment to the Kaia Community.

Infrastructure

• Full multi-region Cortex node support for Kaia Mainnet and Kairos Testnet, integrated into the Alchemy dashboard with 99.99% uptime SLA and 100% data consistency, distributed to 2M+ developers

• Core JSON-RPC and WebSocket coverage, plus testnet faucets with a 250K token quarterly allocation

• Asia-region node deployment to minimize latency for LINE and Kakao integrations

• Migration of the Ratio stablecoin orchestration platform onto Alchemy’s node infrastructure

Governance

• Active participation in GC voting, KGP discussions, and technical working groups

• Quarterly progress reports on infrastructure performance, developer adoption, and enterprise pipeline

5. Your Plan for Securing 5 Million KAIA

Alchemy will request a delegation of 5,000,000 KAIA from the Kaia Foundation upon GC approval. The full delegation will be staked to Alchemy’s consensus node, contributing to network security and uptime, and block rewards will be reinvested into Kaia ecosystem activities including infrastructure operations and developer-facing programs.

[LINENEXT]

We welcome the above applicant proposal of Alchemy, one of the leading Web3 developer platform. We would like to endorse and support the proposal. Thank you.

[Kaia_Governance]

Since this has now been endorsed by the GC, it will proceed to Kaia Square for voting as a GP-24.

[Jay_Swapscanner]

Swapscanner endorses this proposal and welcomes the applicant to the Kaia ecosystem. We look forward to their contribution as a GC member.

[minje_mun]

I do not question Alchemy’s technical capabilities or its position within the industry.

Alchemy is clearly one of the most recognized infrastructure companies in Web3, serving major enterprises and supporting a vast developer ecosystem.

However, the standard for evaluating a Governance Council candidate should not be how famous the company is. It should be how closely its interests are aligned with the long-term success of the Kaia ecosystem.

With that in mind, I would like to ask a few questions.

First, this proposal spends considerable effort highlighting Alchemy’s scale, enterprise customers, investors, and technical achievements.

Yet it does not address what may be the most important question.

How much KAIA does Alchemy currently hold using its own capital?

And does Alchemy have any intention of purchasing or staking KAIA with its own funds in the future?

Second, many of the commitments outlined in this proposal appear to be extensions of services that Alchemy already provides as part of its existing business.

RPC infrastructure, WebSocket support, data APIs, dashboards, and node operations are all core Alchemy products.

This raises an important distinction.

What is Alchemy providing to Kaia?

And what is Alchemy investing into Kaia?

Those are not the same thing.

Third, the proposal emphasizes access to more than 2 million developers.

However, exposure is not the same as adoption.

Adding Kaia to the Alchemy platform does not necessarily translate into meaningful developer growth for the ecosystem. The proposal does not provide any measurable targets, expected onboarding numbers, or accountability metrics that would allow the community to evaluate the actual impact.

Finally, and most importantly, there is the question of economic alignment.

Alchemy presents itself as a leading Web3 infrastructure company backed by top-tier investors, serving major enterprises, and supporting enormous transaction volumes.

Yet when it comes to the 5 million KAIA required for GC participation, the proposal requests a delegation from the Kaia Foundation.

Many individual community members have accumulated hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of KAIA using their own capital while bearing the full market risk for years.

Why should ordinary investors be expected to take that risk, while a globally recognized infrastructure company seeks governance influence through Foundation-delegated assets?

To be clear, nobody is arguing that Alchemy must personally purchase the entire 5 million KAIA requirement.

But I believe the community deserves an answer to a simple question:

Alchemy wishes to benefit from the growth and success of the Kaia ecosystem.

Is Alchemy willing to share in the economic risk as well?

If Kaia is worth securing, governing, and building on, then surely it should also be worth investing in with your own capital.

[minje_mun]

Frankly, this is exactly the kind of governance process that has frustrated long-term community members for years.

The proposal is endorsed, moved forward, and eventually approved, yet most community members have little visibility into what many existing GC members have actually contributed to the ecosystem over time.

KAIA has fallen more than 99% from its peak, and many long-term holders have absorbed enormous losses while continuing to support the network.

Meanwhile, a basic question remains unanswered:

How much value have existing GC members created relative to the rewards and benefits they have received?

Many GC members have operated using Foundation-delegated stake for years. How much staking-related income, validator rewards, and ecosystem support has been generated through those delegations? Where exactly did those benefits go? What measurable outcomes were delivered to the community in return?

Before approving more delegated positions, shouldn’t the community first receive a transparent accounting of the results produced by the existing ones?

What is even more difficult to understand is the continued assumption that new GC candidates should be granted 5 million KAIA through Foundation delegation rather than demonstrating their own conviction through investment.

We are not talking about small startups with no resources. These applicants describe themselves as leading Web3 infrastructure companies, backed by top-tier investors, serving major enterprises, and processing enormous transaction volumes.

If that is true, then why is purchasing 5 million KAIA considered unreasonable?

At today’s market value, 5 million KAIA is not an impossible amount for companies of this scale. Long-term individual investors have accumulated substantial positions using their own capital while bearing the full market risk.

Why should ordinary community members take that risk while professional operators seek governance influence through Foundation-provided assets?

A Governance Council should consist of participants who are willing to share both the upside and the downside of the ecosystem.

If a company wants a seat at the governance table, wants voting power, wants validator rewards, and wants influence over the future of Kaia, then it should be willing to put some of its own capital at risk alongside the community.

Otherwise, it increasingly looks like a system where the community bears the risk while others enjoy the benefits.

Before adding more Foundation-funded GC members, perhaps the community deserves clear answers on the performance of the current ones.

[minje_mun]

라인넥스트, Kaia Foundation, Swapscanner.

매번 신규 GC 제안서가 올라올 때마다 의미 없는 환영 인사나 형식적인 댓글만 달리는 모습이 솔직히 우습게 느껴집니다.

서상민 대표님이 좋아하시는 표현대로, “건설적으로” 질문드리겠습니다.

신규 GC가 올라오면 환영 인사를 달 것이 아니라, 제안서 내용에 대한 검토와 질문이 먼저 나와야 하는 것 아닙니까?

제시한 목표가 현실적인지,

어떤 KPI로 측정할 것인지,

실패하면 어떤 책임을 질 것인지,

왜 자기 자본으로 500만 KAIA는 투자하지 않는지,

이런 질문들이 먼저 나와야 정상 아닌가요?

기존 GC들은 신청 당시 어떤 공약을 했고, 그중 무엇을 달성했습니까?

위임받은 500만 KAIA에서 발생한 보상은 얼마였고 어디에 사용되었습니까?

중도 사임하거나 탈퇴한 GC들에 대해서는 성과 평가를 합니까?

아니면 들어올 때만 심사하고 나갈 때는 아무런 검증도 없이 끝납니까?

신규 신청 기업들은 글로벌 기업, 수백만 사용자, 대기업 네트워크를 이야기하면서 왜 자기 돈으로 500만 KAIA는 투자하지 않고 재단 물량을 요청하는 것입니까?

장밋빛 계획과 환영 인사보다 먼저, 기존 GC들의 성과와 책임에 대한 답변을 부탁드립니다.