Feist proposes $1B self-funded group to stabilize ETH

Ethereum developer Dankrad Feist proposed creating a $1 billion, self-funded organization intended to support ETH’s market position after a wave of departures from the Ethereum Foundation. Feist outlined the idea on social media, saying the body would start with about $1 billion, be led by a chief executive and an accountable board, and sustain itself through staking rewards under governance control.

At least nine staffers and investigators have left the foundation, including Tim Beiko, Josh Stark, Barnabé Monnot, Trent Van Epps and Carl Beek. Simon Dedic, founder and managing partner at Moonrock Capital, described the departures as “a red flag” and called for more focus on business and market needs.

Journalist and podcaster Laura Shin criticized recent protocol updates for weakening ETH tokenomics and the narrative of ETH as ‘ultrasound money.’ She noted two years of unrest among token holders over tokenomics and urged the network to compete for market share.

Feist proposed the organization be “economically aligned” with Ethereum and not rely only on voluntary contributions. He wrote the plan faces political and technical hurdles and added: “Very hard to imagine now, but I think this is the only way (and it will probably happen, but it might take a long time before it is consensus).”

Details in Feist’s outline remain at a high level. The plan calls for an initial capital base near $1 billion and for ongoing staking rewards to fund operations. Governance participants would have authority to calibrate how much staking yield supports the group.

Reactions on social platforms were mixed. Proponents said a dedicated, economically aligned institution could provide steady funding for developer grants, infrastructure and marketing. Critics raised questions about governance complexity and the risk of creating new centralization or conflicts across the decentralized community.

Ethereum is the second-largest blockchain by market value and completed its transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. The foundation’s restructuring and recent departures have renewed debate over how public goods are funded and who sets priorities for protocol development. Discussion among developers, investors and community members is ongoing.