Opinion spotlights weekly 1 ETH buying pledge as bear-market support for NFT artists
The column says the onchain commitment drew matching support and six-figure contributions, though it provides no transaction links or dates.
An opinion column published March 25 by DonaFi CEO Joshua Kim argues that decentralized, onchain crowdfunding can keep NFT artists funded and visible when downturns drain liquidity. The piece centers on a collector-and-curator pledge to buy 1 ETH of emerging-artist work each week on Ethereum mainnet and claims it quickly attracted additional backers.
A simple pledge instead of a fund
The opinion, written by Joshua Kim, CEO and founder of DonaFi, frames decentralized crowdfunding as a practical alternative for NFT artists when market conditions turn and centralized channels stop working. Rather than relying on a platform to intermediate support, the model Kim describes is built around direct purchases that are visible onchain.
Kim’s central example is a commitment by longtime collector Batsoupyum and curator Lanett Bennett Grant. He writes that they avoided launching a dedicated fund or token and instead made a standing promise to buy art consistently.
Why downturns hit artists first
Kim argues that bear markets in NFTs do more than pressure secondary-market pricing. In his telling, falling floor prices coincide with a collapse in attention and liquidity that can cut off primary-sale income, the revenue many artists use to cover rent, finance new work, and remain active.
The column positions traditional, centralized crowdfunding as poorly aligned with that reality. Kim says fees can be high, visibility can be inconsistent, and platforms tend to reward momentum rather than need, leaving creators with fewer options precisely when liquidity dries up.
How decentralized crowdfunding is supposed to work
Kim describes decentralized crowdfunding as capital moving directly from collectors to creators without platform permissioning or centralized coordination. In the case study, the mechanism is a recurring purchase plan executed on Ethereum mainnet, with the buyer and curator also providing context around the work.
“Rather than launch a flashy fund or token, they committed to spending 1 Ether ( ETH ) every week on Ethereum mainnet works from emerging artists, sharing the stories behind each piece and explicitly not flipping for profit,” Kim wrote. The no-flipping commitment is presented as a way to separate the effort from short-term trading incentives and keep the focus on sustained support.
Kim also argues that the transparency of blockchain transactions is part of the appeal. “Everything happens onchain, in public, one purchase at a time,” he wrote, describing a structure where artists receive direct payment and collectors can see where funds go.
Claimed follow-on support, with key gaps
The column says the weekly-buy commitment spread quickly even in what it calls “brutal conditions,” and it lists specific participants and amounts. “Punk6529 matched the weekly ETH pledge. Sam Spratt added $20,000. Bob Loukas followed with another $100,000,” Kim wrote.
Kim adds that galleries offered exhibitions and that platforms “like Foundation” committed to features, describing these as additional distribution and visibility boosts that did not require centralized approvals.
The piece does not provide dates, wallet addresses, or transaction links for the weekly 1 ETH purchases or the stated matching and dollar-denominated contributions. It also does not specify what the referenced “monthly opens” are, who runs them, or what Foundation’s “features” entail.
Network effects over one-off gestures
Kim’s broader claim is that decentralized crowdfunding works in downturns because it can be sustained and socially reinforced. He argues that storytelling and curation travel alongside the transaction, and that repeatable discovery mechanisms can keep attention on emerging artists when speculation fades.
He frames the approach as “a network effect, not a charity,” arguing that participants amplify one another and that collectors can help stabilize markets rather than replace them. The column closes by casting the model as a 2026 test of whether decentralized capital can still function when hype cycles cool and centralized gatekeeping becomes a constraint.
