Ethereum is currently undergoing a rare period of internal upheaval. In May 2026, former Ethereum Foundation core researcher Dankrad Feist made a bold proposal on social platform X—raising at least $1 billion to establish a new organization that would be deeply economically aligned with Ethereum, aiming to "save" the network. This statement quickly sparked heated debate within the community, pushing the months-long Ethereum Foundation governance crisis to a new peak.
To understand the origins of this proposal, we first need to look back at the recent internal changes within the Ethereum Foundation. Since the beginning of 2026, the Foundation has lost at least eight core members. It began with Co-Executive Director Tomasz Stańczak’s departure in February, followed by Josh Stark and Trent Van Epps in April, then Barnabé Monnot and Tim Beiko stepping down from leadership roles in May, and Alex Stokes going on leave. On May 19, two senior researchers, Carl Beek and Julian Ma, announced their resignations on the same day—eight high-level departures in five months, with five occurring in May alone.
These departures are significant. Carl Beek spent seven years at the Foundation, played a key role in Beacon Chain development, and was instrumental in Ethereum’s 2020 transition to Proof-of-Stake. Julian Ma worked at the Foundation for about four years, focusing on mechanism design, cryptoeconomics, and protocol scaling, and co-authored the FOCIL proposal to enhance censorship resistance. Their collective exit has been widely seen in the industry as a "talent exodus."
Against this backdrop, Feist’s proposal is viewed as a direct response to the Foundation’s current state.
The Core of the Event: Feist’s Three-Tiered Framework
Dankrad Feist’s proposal is not a spur-of-the-moment appeal but a well-structured organizational design with a clear logical framework that can be understood on three levels.
Feist’s core assessment is that there is a "limited alignment" between the Ethereum Foundation’s economic interests and the Ethereum network itself. Data shows that the Foundation currently holds less than 0.1% of ETH’s total supply, with no income from staking or transaction fees. This means the Foundation’s financial health is almost entirely decoupled from ETH’s market performance—Ethereum’s long-term economic success does not directly translate into more resources for the Foundation, nor does the Foundation have direct economic incentives to drive ETH’s value higher.
Organizational Structure
To address this, Feist’s proposed new organization would need to meet several hard requirements: raise at least $1 billion in funding; appoint a leader who is both capable and willing to drive change; establish accountability mechanisms, including a board made up of people who want the ETH price to rise, and a charter explicitly requiring the organization to serve Ethereum’s interests; secure permanent funding through channels such as staking income, with dynamic adjustments via governance mechanisms.
Notably, Feist describes $1 billion as a starting figure, not a cap. Given Ethereum’s market cap of roughly $250 billion, this amount represents about 0.4%, which he considers "quite reasonable."
Strategic Goals
In Feist’s vision, the new organization’s core mission is not just to keep the ecosystem running but to actively drive ETH price appreciation. This stands in stark contrast to the Ethereum Foundation’s self-described role—in its 38-page mandate released in March 2026, the Foundation explicitly stated it is "not a marketing agency," "not a casino," and "not a speculator."
The document defines the Foundation as one of many stewards, not a promoter of Ethereum, and sets censorship resistance, open source, privacy, and security (CROPS) as unshakable core principles.
The Ethereum Foundation’s Structural Dilemma
Before evaluating the feasibility of Feist’s proposal, it’s essential to examine the current challenges facing the Ethereum Foundation.
Misaligned Financial Mechanisms
The Ethereum Foundation is not a typical commercial entity; its operational funding mainly comes from selling its ETH reserves. In recent years, the Foundation has shifted its strategy from periodically selling ETH to staking a portion of its holdings for operational income. In February 2026, the Foundation launched a staking plan targeting 70,000 ETH, with projected annual returns of $3.9 million to $5.4 million. However, as Feist points out, the core issue remains: the Foundation holds a very small share of ETH, and direct revenue from Ethereum network economic activity does not flow effectively to the Foundation.
Governance and Communication Gaps
It’s worth noting that, amid this wave of high-level departures, the Ethereum Foundation has yet to provide detailed explanations for each exit or systematically address external criticisms of its leadership and strategic direction. This silence has, to some extent, heightened uncertainty within the community. While the Foundation officially characterizes these personnel changes as part of organizational evolution, outside observers speculate that internal disputes over Layer 2 scaling priorities, financial management, and governance transparency may also be contributing factors.
The Gap Between Reform and Reality
In fact, as early as January 2025, Vitalik Buterin announced a major overhaul of the Foundation’s leadership structure, claiming the reform had been underway for nearly a year. His stated goals included increasing the technical expertise of the leadership team, improving two-way communication with ecosystem participants, bringing in new talent to boost execution, and providing more active support for application developers.
Yet, more than a year later, the situation has not improved noticeably. Several researchers once considered the Foundation’s backbone have left, and the reform appears overwhelmed by ongoing personnel changes.
Community Sentiment: Division and Concern
Feist’s proposal has sparked two sharply contrasting reactions on social media and in crypto media circles.
Supporters’ Logic: Using Economic Incentives to Fix Governance Failures
Supporters believe Feist’s diagnosis targets a long-standing pain point in the Ethereum ecosystem. The Foundation’s current structure is decoupled from ETH’s economic performance, leaving it without a clear incentive to address market concerns. An organization with $1 billion in funding and economic alignment with Ethereum would more directly represent the interests of ecosystem stakeholders.
Additionally, some in the community have expressed doubts about the Foundation’s recent approach. The Foundation’s mandate released in March 2026 included elements some considered vague sexual innuendo and imagery, as well as references to the controversial Miladys NFT collection—choices that, in the eyes of some community members, undermined the document’s seriousness. Notably, Bankless co-founder David Hoffman publicly disclosed that he had sold all his ETH holdings, further amplifying community anxiety.
Opponents’ Warnings: The Risks of Centralization
Opposition voices are equally important. Some community members warn that if a single organization can exert major influence over Ethereum’s governance, hard fork timelines, and network development pace, Ethereum risks becoming "just another enterprise blockchain," fundamentally violating its core principle of decentralization.
Feist responded by saying the new organization "doesn’t necessarily need to fully control Ethereum’s development," but should have "significant influence." Rather than easing concerns, this statement has triggered further questions about the boundaries of such influence.
ETH Price Under Pressure, Sentiment Spreads
The intensity of community debate is also directly tied to ETH’s price performance. According to Gate market data, as of May 25, 2026, ETH was priced at $2,104.89, down 6.19% over the past week, 5.70% over the past 30 days, and 15.58% over the past year. Since the start of 2026, ETH has fallen from around $3,000, with a year-to-date drop approaching 30%. ETH continues to underperform Bitcoin, and JPMorgan analysts note that unless network activity improves significantly, this trend may persist.
Santiment data shows Ethereum’s social sentiment has shifted from "patient" to "frustrated," with more and more market participants describing ETH as "dead money." The US spot Ethereum ETF saw net outflows for ten consecutive trading days in May, totaling about $216 million withdrawn.
All these factors have combined to push community dissatisfaction to its highest level in years, bringing Feist’s proposal far more attention than a typical debate.
A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Industry Impact
Feist’s proposal and the ensuing debate have broad implications for the crypto industry.
A Challenge to Ethereum’s Governance Model
This episode touches on a fundamental issue in decentralized governance: Can a nonprofit organization that does not pursue profit effectively drive the value growth of an asset worth hundreds of billions of dollars? The Foundation’s mandate positions it as "one of many stewards," not the network’s promoter. But in the current market environment, more people are questioning whether this restrained role is enough to maintain the ecosystem’s competitiveness.
Accelerating Talent Mobility
The trend of core developers and researchers leaving the Foundation for other projects may, in the short term, increase uncertainty around Ethereum’s technical roadmap execution. On the other hand, it also means that Ethereum’s talent is spreading into broader fields—Feist joined Tempo, former core developer Danny Ryan co-founded Etherealize, and these former Foundation members continue to play important roles within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Lessons for Crypto Organization Governance
The Foundation’s predicament is not unique. Many large protocols in the crypto industry face similar governance challenges: How to balance decentralization ideals with market realities? How to create value for asset holders while maintaining technical neutrality? Whether or not Feist’s proposal is ultimately adopted, it provides an important case study for the entire industry.
Technical Upgrades Continue
Despite market pressure and personnel changes, Ethereum’s technical roadmap continues to advance. The "Glamsterdam" and "Hegotá" upgrades scheduled for 2026 are expected to further enhance the network’s scalability and operational efficiency. Ethereum’s development remains highly decentralized, and changes at the Foundation level do not equate to stagnation at the protocol level.
Conclusion
Dankrad Feist’s $1 billion proposal highlights a core dilemma facing the Ethereum ecosystem: Should a network built on decentralization, censorship resistance, and technical purity have a powerful organization that is tightly economically aligned with it to drive value growth? If so, what form should such an organization take?
The answer to this question may not emerge in the short term. But one thing is clear: Ethereum is undergoing a profound period of self-examination—about governance, economic incentives, and the boundaries between ideals and reality. The ultimate decision will not only shape Ethereum’s own future but also serve as an important reference point for organizational governance across the entire crypto industry.
