Recently, many people have been asking whether holding NEO long-term is still worthwhile, and I personally am optimistic.
To be honest, those previous disputes have finally been settled. Now, the power structure is clear, led by a single manager overseeing operations. What does this mean? Generally speaking, if the management team doesn't want to be repeatedly questioned by the market, they should focus on project development—after all, no one enjoys the constant criticism and doubt.
From an incentive mechanism perspective, the sole manager actually has a higher focus. Without multi-party negotiations, decision-making efficiency theoretically improves. Of course, this also means that every move by the manager will be amplified by the market—this is both pressure and motivation for the project team.
If you are a holder, you can continue to observe for a while. It is recommended not to go all-in on a single position; consider a phased deployment strategy. This way, you can participate in potential upward opportunities while managing risk. The market is always full of variables, but a clear governance structure at least provides us with a better basis for judgment.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
10 Likes
Reward
10
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
周福星
· 12h ago
The most failed investment in a coin this year
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainTherapist
· 17h ago
A single manager sounds nice, but it just means all the pressure is on one person, betting that they won't mess up.
Gradual entry still requires patience, but Neo has indeed been quite aggressive these past few years.
View OriginalReply0
IntrovertMetaverse
· 17h ago
A single manager has its pros and cons; it depends on whether they can genuinely build steadily in the future.
Centralized power leads to efficiency, but when things go wrong, one person takes the blame. It's still a gamble on character.
Staggered deployment is a reliable suggestion; going all-in on anything is a gambler's mentality.
Let's wait and see. Anyway, the current policy environment is still favorable.
View OriginalReply0
ResearchChadButBroke
· 17h ago
A single manager basically means one person makes the decisions. It would be great if this time it doesn't mess up.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseLandlord
· 18h ago
A single manager means betting on one person, and the pressure is indeed high.
NEO's authority has been clarified in this wave, but to be honest, relying on one person to carry the entire project is quite risky, right? If this guy is in poor condition or makes a wrong decision, the whole project could suffer, and there's no one to help balance things.
The suggestion of batching is good, but I still worry about liquidity issues. Can it be pulled out?
View OriginalReply0
gas_fee_therapist
· 18h ago
The single manager thing, they have a tough exterior but a soft heart. The pressure is immense, but efficiency can indeed improve.
Staged deployment is more reliable; leave all-in strategies to gamblers.
Once disputes settle, it depends on whether real work can be done afterward. Who can talk nicely but not follow through?
The governance structure is clear, but the key is whether this guy can withstand the scrutiny of the market magnifying glass.
Honestly, it still depends on subsequent development; no matter how clear the structure is, a bad project can't be saved.
View OriginalReply0
MeaninglessApe
· 18h ago
Can neo turn things around this time? Having a single manager sounds like being shackled, and it seems the risk is actually more concentrated.
Just wait for the manager to mess up, then no one will take the blame.
Staggered deployment is the right approach; going all-in is really just foolish.
How did those previous disputes suddenly settle? It feels like there are more stories behind the scenes.
Honestly, clear governance doesn't necessarily mean the price will go up; that logic is a bit forced.
I see neo as a gamble, but since I'm already in, I might as well hold on.
While decision-making by a single manager is efficient, the power is too concentrated— isn't that another kind of risk?
Recently, many people have been asking whether holding NEO long-term is still worthwhile, and I personally am optimistic.
To be honest, those previous disputes have finally been settled. Now, the power structure is clear, led by a single manager overseeing operations. What does this mean? Generally speaking, if the management team doesn't want to be repeatedly questioned by the market, they should focus on project development—after all, no one enjoys the constant criticism and doubt.
From an incentive mechanism perspective, the sole manager actually has a higher focus. Without multi-party negotiations, decision-making efficiency theoretically improves. Of course, this also means that every move by the manager will be amplified by the market—this is both pressure and motivation for the project team.
If you are a holder, you can continue to observe for a while. It is recommended not to go all-in on a single position; consider a phased deployment strategy. This way, you can participate in potential upward opportunities while managing risk. The market is always full of variables, but a clear governance structure at least provides us with a better basis for judgment.