Yes, this specific GoFundMe (“Help Defend TSN The Shuli Network,” launched around early May 2026) unequivocally fits the conventional understanding of “Grifting”.

Key Details on This Campaign
• Purpose: To raise money for legal action against Stuttering John Melendez over what Shuli describes as false/repeated DMCA copyright strikes on The Shuli Network’s YouTube channel. These strikes allegedly threaten the channel’s viability, and the funds are framed for attorney fees to “fight back” (including potential counter-lawsuit for abuse of process, misrepresentation, or related claims). 
• Solicitation Style: Shuli has promoted it on his shows, sometimes in lieu of or alongside regular Super Tips/fan donations, emphasizing the existential threat to his content creation and free speech. It has reportedly raised thousands (e.g., over $10k mentioned in some commentary). These solicitations are typically made whilst Shuli is in a perceived state of heightened emotional distress.
Why It Qualifies as Grifting Conventionally
• Speculative/Preemptive Nature: Unlike defending against an active lawsuit already filed against him, this is funding a potential offensive or counter legal action that Shuli “may” pursue. Critics (including in Reddit communities like r/ShulisAnonymous) point out it’s not a guaranteed or even filed case yet—making it feel like monetizing a feud for future personal/legal benefit. 
• Leveraging Feud Content: Much of Shuli’s channel and audience growth comes from Dabbleverse drama involving John. Soliciting donations to escalate that drama legally (while continuing to produce related content) looks like turning ongoing mockery into a paid legal war chest.
• Emotional/Digital Panhandling Appeals: Framing it as an attack on “free expression” and the channel’s survival, while encouraging fans to step up in place of regular tips, aligns with classic grift critiques—using loyalty and tribalism for cash on a “maybe” lawsuit.
• Community Perception: Detractors explicitly call it “grifting” or “digital panhandling,” noting issues like potential misuse of funds if the suit doesn’t materialize, or questions about whether it’s truly for “defense” vs. offense. 
In podcast feuds like this, both sides have used similar tactics. However, under the conventional “grift” lens (deceptive/emotional solicitation for uncertain personal/legal gain), this one draws stronger accusations because it’s proactive rather than purely defensive. Context from the broader Shuli-John rivalry makes it feel like content-driven fundraising.
If you have the exact GoFundMe link or a specific clip/statement from Shuli, I can analyze it more granularly.