DeFiLlama’s founder 0xngmi has accused Blockworks of reselling DeFiLlama’s free data

A dispute between DeFiLlama and Blockworks has surfaced over data usage and licensing practices, with the decentralized finance analytics platform’s founder accusing the company of reselling DeFiLlama’s free data through a paid dashboard service. The confrontation unfolded publicly on social media as Blockworks announced a strategic shift toward becoming a data-focused organization, stepping back from its news operations.

The Accusation

On social media, DeFiLlama founder 0xngmi alleged that Blockworks was incorporating DeFiLlama’s free data into a commercial analytics platform priced at $4,500 annually. According to 0xngmi, this practice violated DeFiLlama’s terms of service, and Blockworks had previously claimed it had removed all DeFiLlama data from its systems.

The timing of the accusation was significant. Blockworks co-founder Jason Yanowitz had just published a detailed statement outlining the company’s strategic direction, emphasizing a transition away from crypto news toward a data infrastructure model.

Blockworks becoming a data first org is cool I guess, but you guys could start by not reselling our free data for $4.5k/yr against our Terms of Services, even after telling us you had removed all our data when we asked.

— 0xngmi, DeFiLlama Founder

Blockworks’ Strategic Pivot

Yanowitz’s announcement detailed Blockworks’ evolution since its 2017 founding. He described the company’s original mission as solving “the information problem” during a period when cryptocurrency was expanding rapidly but lacked reliable, professional reporting infrastructure.

Over the years, Blockworks developed a diverse portfolio including events, podcasts, research products, and data dashboards alongside its newsroom operations. The company reported record revenues in 2025 and projected continued growth into 2026, with particularly strong momentum in its data division.

Yanowitz positioned the company’s data business as its most promising growth avenue since founding. He acknowledged that the crypto media landscape has matured considerably, with users increasingly preferring data dashboards to traditional news articles as their primary information source.

The CEO announced that Blockworks would exit its news division entirely. However, the company plans to maintain newsletters, podcasts, and event operations, including the DAS conference scheduled for Abu Dhabi in the coming year.

The Technical Dispute

Dan Smith, Blockworks’ head of data, responded directly to 0xngmi’s accusations. He claimed that Blockworks had phased out DeFiLlama data months prior, following DeFiLlama’s change to its terms of service. According to Smith, the chart visible in 0xngmi’s screenshot represented an edge case—a deprecated dashboard builder that displays historical charts regardless of whether underlying data remained active.

0xngmi rejected this explanation, asserting that the “application revenue by chain” chart shown in his screenshot was functioning and returning current DeFiLlama data. The exchange escalated when 0xngmi characterized Smith’s response as dishonest.

Smith countered that the chart had not been updated since July, and that he had previously communicated this status through direct messages. He suggested 0xngmi should have raised the issue more informally before making a public accusation.

Industry Context and Data Licensing Challenges

The DeFiLlama-Blockworks dispute occurs within a rapidly expanding landscape of decentralized finance analytics platforms. As the DeFi market has matured, numerous companies have emerged offering similar data aggregation and visualization services. This crowded market creates natural pressure for differentiation, with some companies choosing to build proprietary data collection infrastructure while others leverage existing free sources enhanced with additional features or user interfaces.

DeFiLlama itself represents an important model in the crypto ecosystem. As an open-source analytics platform, it provides free access to comprehensive protocol data, transaction metrics, and liquidity information. This generous approach has made DeFiLlama the default reference point for many industry participants, from retail traders to institutional investors. However, DeFiLlama’s free-to-use model faces inherent sustainability challenges, particularly when commercial entities extract and repackage its data without compensation or attribution.

The platform’s shift toward more restrictive licensing terms reflects a broader industry tension. Many crypto projects and tools began as entirely open-source or free services, but as they matured and faced pressure to generate revenue, they imposed usage restrictions. DeFiLlama’s approach—remaining free while implementing terms of service that restrict commercial repackaging—represents a middle ground between complete openness and paid-only access.

Blockworks’ position in this market is notable. As a venture-backed company with significant funding and institutional connections, it operates at a different scale than many competitors. The company’s decision to build a paid data dashboard service reflects confidence in customer willingness to pay premium pricing for enhanced features, improved interfaces, or integrated analytics that combine multiple data sources.

Market Implications and Precedent Setting

This dispute carries implications extending beyond the two companies involved. The crypto analytics market represents a substantial and growing segment of the broader digital infrastructure industry. Market research indicates that institutional investment in crypto data and analytics has grown significantly, with companies like Glassnode, Nansen, and others commanding substantial valuations based on their data products.

If DeFiLlama’s allegations prove accurate, the dispute demonstrates the vulnerability of free data platforms to unauthorized commercial exploitation. Other open-source projects and free analytics services may face similar challenges. The outcome could influence whether other platforms pursue more aggressive licensing enforcement or restrict their data access more broadly.

From an investor perspective, the disagreement raises questions about the sustainability of Blockworks’ data business model. If the company’s product relies significantly on data sourced from free platforms with restrictive terms, its long-term viability depends on either reaching licensing agreements with those platforms or transitioning to proprietary data collection methods. Neither path is costless or guaranteed to succeed.

The incident also reflects evolving expectations around data ethics in the crypto industry. As blockchain technology emphasizes transparency and decentralization, there is inherent tension when companies extract value from shared, open-source resources. The crypto community has demonstrated strong reactions to perceived unfair data practices in the past, and public disputes like this one can influence how platforms are perceived by users and investors alike.

Broader Implications

This dispute highlights ongoing tensions around data ownership and licensing in the crypto ecosystem. Open-source data platforms like DeFiLlama provide free access to critical information, yet their terms of service restrict commercial repackaging without explicit permission.

The disagreement also reflects broader questions about how crypto infrastructure projects monetize and scale. As companies like Blockworks build paid analytics services, questions naturally arise about whether they are building original value or simply repackaging existing free resources with enhanced interfaces.

The resolution of this dispute may establish important precedents for the entire analytics and data infrastructure segment of the crypto industry. As platforms increasingly recognize the commercial value of blockchain data, questions of proper attribution, licensing compliance, and fair compensation for data sources will become more prevalent. Both the crypto community and the companies operating within it would benefit from clearer industry standards around data licensing and usage rights.

For observers of the broader crypto market, this incident underscores the importance of clear licensing agreements and transparent data sourcing practices. As the industry matures and commercial pressures increase, such conflicts may become more common rather than isolated incidents. Companies building analytics services must ensure they maintain compliance with the terms of service governing the data they utilize, regardless of whether that data is free or paid.

The dispute remains unresolved, with both parties presenting conflicting technical claims about the current state of data integration and update frequency on Blockworks’ platform. The outcome could set precedents for how similar disputes are handled within the decentralized finance space and influence the broader data licensing landscape across cryptocurrency infrastructure.

For regular updates on the evolving dynamics between major crypto platforms and infrastructure providers, stay informed through CCS news coverage of the sector.