NEO's Leadership Crisis: Da Hongfei and Zhang Zhengwen Battle Over Monopolizing Asset Control

The NEO community faces a critical juncture as two of its most prominent founders have publicly aired a bitter dispute over governance and financial control. According to reports from December 31st, Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang (Zhang Zhengwen) engaged in a pointed confrontation regarding the monopolizing of NEO’s core assets and treasury management, a conflict that could fundamentally reshape the blockchain project’s future.

The Competing Accusations: Who Is Monopolizing Power?

At the heart of this dispute lies a stark disagreement over financial authority. Da Hongfei alleges that Zhang has maintained exclusive ownership of the majority of NEO and GAS tokens, breaking an earlier commitment to transition these assets to a multisignature wallet controlled collectively. He contends that Zhang’s monopolizing grip over these assets has enabled him to exercise outsized influence over protocol governance decisions, effectively bypassing the community’s voice. In response to mounting pressure, Da Hongfei announced plans to release a comprehensive financial report in Q1 2026, signaling his determination to reclaim treasury control.

Zhang’s Counterargument: The Financial Black Box

Zhang Zhengwen provided a pointed rebuttal, shifting the focus to what he characterizes as Da Hongfei’s own financial opacity. He argues that Da Hongfei has been monopolizing control over all foundation assets except NEO and GAS, while providing no transparent accounting to the community or external auditors. According to Zhang, his insistence on holding the core NEO/GAS assets serves as a crucial safeguard against what he views as Da Hongfei’s hidden financial operations. Without this balance, Zhang warns, these vital assets could be absorbed into an unauditable system with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Why This Matters: Governance at a Breaking Point

The escalating conflict represents more than a personal dispute between co-founders—it signals a deeper governance crisis within NEO. The mutual accusations of monopolizing decision-making authority and concealing financial operations underscore the absence of transparent, distributed governance structures. With questions mounting about asset control, financial accountability, and protocol authority, the NEO community now faces urgent pressure to establish clearer checks and balances to prevent either founder from monopolizing power.