Neo's Governance Crisis: Unresolved Tensions Between Co-founders Over Power Distribution and Financial Accountability

A significant dispute has surfaced within the Neo ecosystem as Erik Zhang, founder and key technical architect of Neo (NEO, currently trading at $3.88), challenges fellow co-founder Da Hongfei on matters of fiscal accountability and organizational control. According to recent reports, Zhang has demanded that Hongfei release comprehensive financial documentation to the community, including a detailed breakdown of all assets held by the Neo Foundation and a complete expenditure ledger.

The Core Disagreement: Control and Transparency

Zhang contends that transparency remains absent despite repeated assurances. During their latest communication, the two reportedly agreed that Hongfei would redirect his focus exclusively toward NeoX and SpoonOS development starting January 1, 2026, while withdrawing from Neo mainnet governance. This arrangement appears designed to establish clearer boundaries in project control and decision-making authority.

Hongfei’s counter-position presents a different narrative about power dynamics. He claims that Zhang maintains substantial influence over Neo’s financial resources and wields significant sway over validator node voting patterns. This concentration of power, Hongfei suggests, contradicts blockchain’s foundational principle that no single entity should dominate a decentralized project.

The Token Transfer Stalemate

The dispute centers partly on NEO and GAS token management. Hongfei has persistently urged Zhang to transfer these digital assets from personal custody into the Neo Foundation’s multi-signature wallet, with Zhang retaining custodian key authority. This arrangement would theoretically distribute control while maintaining Zhang’s security role. However, Zhang has repeatedly postponed this transfer, most recently indicating the transition would coincide with the completion of N3 migration.

Hongfei acknowledged his previous reluctance to escalate the issue publicly, prioritizing community confidence and diplomatic resolution. His recent statement suggests some regret about this measured approach, hinting that earlier transparency might have prevented the current friction.

Implications for Neo’s Ecosystem

The governance standoff raises questions about institutional resilience and power centralization within established blockchain projects. Whether the January 1 deadline will bring clarity or further complications remains to be seen. The situation underscores ongoing tensions between maintaining technical integrity and establishing distributed governance—a challenge many established crypto initiatives continue to navigate.