Dankrad Feist’s $1B Plan to Build a New Ethereum Advocacy Organization

Feist argues that this structure leaves Ethereum without an organization whose incentives are directly tied to the network’s success.

In his view, an entity that is financially aligned with ETH itself would be better positioned to push adoption, defend the ecosystem’s interests, and compete strategically with other blockchain platforms.

The Core Idea: A $1 Billion Ethereum-Aligned Institution

The proposal calls for launching a new organization with at least $1 billion in funding, ideally held in ETH, creating a large long‑term treasury that can be used to support ecosystem development and advocacy.

Unlike a traditional nonprofit foundation, the group would be structured so that its incentives rise and fall with Ethereum’s success. That alignment is intended to ensure its priorities match the interests of ETH holders and the broader ecosystem.

Feist describes the idea as building a kind of “war chest” for Ethereum, enabling the ecosystem to fund initiatives, defend its narrative, and compete more effectively in the fast‑moving blockchain industry.

Key Requirements Feist Outlined

Reports summarizing Feist’s posts outline several core requirements for the new organization’s structure.

1. Large Initial Funding Base

The organization would start with at least $1 billion in funding, providing enough capital to operate at global scale and support long‑term initiatives.

2. Recurring Revenue From Ethereum Itself

Feist argues the group should receive ongoing revenue tied to Ethereum, particularly through mechanisms such as staking rewards or other network‑related income streams.

This would prevent the organization from simply spending down a fixed treasury and instead give it sustainable funding tied to the health of the network.

3. Strong Governance and Accountability

The proposed institution would include a board accountable to the Ethereum community or ETH holders, with clear oversight and governance structures.

The goal is to avoid informal stewardship and ensure that leadership decisions remain aligned with Ethereum’s long‑term interests.

4. Competent, Execution‑Focused Leadership

Feist also emphasized the need for experienced leadership willing to actively advocate for Ethereum and compete with other blockchain ecosystems.

Rather than focusing primarily on research grants or technical neutrality, the organization would take a more strategic and operational role in promoting the network.

The Context: Brain Drain and Community Frustration

The proposal emerged during a period of tension within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Several reports link the debate to a wave of departures among prominent Ethereum contributors, including researchers and developers such as Danny Ryan, Carl Beek, and Julian Ma.

These exits have fueled concerns about a possible "brain drain" and prompted discussions about whether Ethereum’s institutional structures are still fit for the ecosystem’s scale and competitive environment.

At the same time, some members of the community have expressed frustration with ETH’s market performance and strategic positioning compared with rival blockchains.

Supporters of Feist’s proposal see a new, well‑funded institution as a way to address these concerns by creating a powerful organization dedicated to advancing Ethereum’s adoption and influence.

An Idea Still in Early Stages

Despite the attention the proposal has received, it remains conceptual rather than fully specified. Most details currently come from reports summarizing Feist’s public posts rather than a formal governance blueprint or funding plan.

Still, the idea has sparked significant debate about Ethereum’s future governance model—and whether the ecosystem needs a new institution built specifically to champion Ethereum’s economic and competitive interests.