Former Ethereum Foundation research staffer Dankrad Feist proposed on Thursday the creation of a new, independent advocacy organization funded with at least $1 billion in ETH to bolster the network’s competitive position. The proposal surfaces as the Ethereum Foundation (EF) navigates a significant talent drain, with at least eight senior departures recorded in 2026, including five high-profile exits in May alone. Dankrad Feist argued that the community must establish a body economically aligned with the token’s success to “save Ethereum.”
The timing of the proposal highlights a sharpening debate over the Ethereum Foundation’s historically price-agnostic stance. Ethereum (ETH) has declined roughly 57% from its peak near $5,000 last summer to approximately $2,100, fueling concerns that a research-only focus is no longer sufficient. This market pressure arrives as Ethereum price outlook weakens following technical breakdowns and sustained outflows from institutional investment products.
Dankrad Feist outlined four specific requirements for the new entity: a minimum of $1 billion in ETH funding, a permanent revenue stream from staking fees, a board that wants “ETH to go up,” and a leader described as “competent” and ready to “fight.” He noted that the EF currently holds less than 0.1% of all ETH and lacks a direct flow of staking or fee revenue, leaving it potentially detached from the economic interests of token holders.
Internal exodus at Ethereum Foundation sparks identity debate
The exodus of senior staff has served as a primary catalyst for this discussion. In May 2026, several key figures resigned, including Barnabé Monnot, Tim Beiko, Carl Beek, Julian Ma, and Trent Van Epps. These departures have notably stripped the Protocol cluster—the team responsible for essential base-layer research—of contributors across every layer of its coverage. This perceived “brain drain” has led some to question if the current foundation model has reached a point of exhaustion.
While some see the exits as a crisis, others view the shift as part of a natural evolution. Even as Ethereum navigates key support levels during this period of transition, the EF has maintained its focus on technical fundamentals. In March, the foundation published its CROPS mandate, which positions the organization as a temporary steward focused exclusively on censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security, with no mention of market price.
Community polarization over price mandates and decentralization
Reaction to the proposal has been deeply divided. Ryan Adams, co-founder of Bankless, strongly endorsed the concept and identified firms like FundStrat and BitMine (BMNR) as potential candidates to lead such an effort. Supporters argue that Ethereum needs aggressive advocacy to compete with centralized blockchains. Some observers, like BookofEth, suggest that “fighters” for the network, including BlackRock, Sony, and Aave, are already economically aligned and may not require a new charter.
However, many researchers and developers have pushed back against the idea of a centralized advocacy body with a price mandate. FigoETH argued that Ethereum is a global decentralized movement coordinated by social consensus, rather than a single organization, suggesting Feist’s model is better suited to centralized chains like Tempo. There are also fears that such an organization could inadvertently harm the network’s core value proposition.
Ethereum consensus researcher potuz issued a stern warning regarding the implications of centralized governance. He argued that if a single organization controlled the fork schedule, the shipping pace, and governance, it would effectively turn Ethereum into “another corporate chain.” This risk of centralization remains a primary concern for those who believe Ethereum’s value is derived from its resistance to institutional control.
Future institutional alignment and the search for metrics
The success of the proposed organization will likely depend on whether major stakeholders are willing to put capital behind the vision. Michael Egorov, the founder of Curve, questioned the “main objective” of the entity and called for a clearly defined metric to measure its success. Without specific performance indicators, critics argue the initiative could lack accountability and fail to achieve its economic goals.
Alternative efforts are already underway within the ecosystem. The Ethereum Community Foundation stated it had predicted the need for price-aligned advocacy and has been developing an ETH-aligned alternative throughout the year. As the community weighs these options, the shifts in the market continue to influence investor behavior, often mirroring how Bitcoin exchange supply maintains multi-year lows as holders move toward long-term self-custody or staking.
Whether the current frustration leads to the birth of a $1 billion powerhouse or fades into governance fatigue remains to be seen. If Dankrad Feist’s proposal gains traction, it could mark the end of Ethereum’s price-agnostic era and the beginning of a more commercially aggressive chapter for the protocol. For now, the ecosystem remains caught between its decentralized ideals and the harsh realities of a competitive market.
