A much-anticipated meeting between Neo co-founders Erik Zhang and Da Hongfei on Jan. 26, 2026, aimed at resolving escalating disagreements over governance and financial oversight, ended without reconciliation. Instead, the meeting marked the beginning of a new round of public disagreement, revealing significant differences in vision and interpretation between the two leaders.

Meeting expectations and fractured outcomes

In the days leading up to the meeting, both Zhang and Da had signaled a desire to find common ground. Zhang emphasized the need for financial transparency and called for a singular focus on Neo’s MainNet development. Meanwhile, Da published a preliminary financial “snapshot” outlining more than US $430 million in total assets across the Neo Foundation and Neo Global Development, and reiterated four strategic mandates for 2026: complete commitment to Neo ecosystem assets, alignment through NEO/GAS accumulation, an expanded community grant program, and full financial transparency.

However, shortly after the meeting concluded, Zhang publicly characterized the conversation as unproductive. He stated that his three core requests – verifiable financial oversight, discontinuation of EON (a separate blockchain initiative), and access to Neo’s official communication channels – were all rejected. In response, Zhang called on Da to step down from leadership roles in the Neo ecosystem.

Da replied with a contrasting perspective. He emphasized his willingness to proceed under a framework of “limited cooperation,” allowing both parties to work independently where visions diverge. He disputed Zhang’s framing of the meeting and described the request for oversight as an attempt to centralize authority. He also stated that Zhang would be granted publishing access to Neo’s official website and social media, and confirmed that NGD would begin purchasing NEO/GAS, with addresses to be disclosed post-execution.

Clarifying asset composition

To support the transparency effort, Da released a snapshot summarizing the composition of NF and NGD assets. According to the snapshot, the Neo Foundation Treasury holds approximately US $204.5 million in assets, composed of:

  • $174 million in NEO/GAS held in single-signature wallets
  • $30 million in NEO/GAS under multisig custody
  • $0.5 million in ONT tokens classified as non-NEO assets

Neo Global Development holds an additional $227.3 million, consisting of:

  • $7.5 million in NEO/GAS
  • $8.8 million in non-NEO operational capital
  • $17.1 million in ongoing, potentially illiquid investments
  • $193.9 million in realized investment returns, mostly in BTC and stablecoins

Combined, these figures equal more than $430 million in total assets across both entities.

Zhang responded to the snapshot by calling for the publication of public wallet addresses, stating, “In crypto, numbers without addresses are meaningless.” He argued that periodic financial disclosures, regardless of frequency or detail, do not amount to genuine oversight. He stated that transparency without preventative controls merely documents decisions after they occur, rather than constraining them in advance.

Da, in turn, asserted that financial reports with greater transparency would resume quarterly starting in Q1 2026. He also stated that previous hesitations around disclosure were due to regulatory considerations, particularly following increased scrutiny of digital asset foundations in China after 2020.

Accusations and clarifications

While both founders reiterated their public commitment to Neo’s success, the meeting’s aftermath quickly shifted from disagreement to personal tension. Zhang stated that Da had dismissed his legitimacy as a Neo Foundation co-founder during the meeting and described the exchange as “humiliating.” Da, in response, emphasized that he had long trusted Zhang with control of NF’s treasury and affirmed his respect for him as a core developer, but disputed some of Zhang’s recollections. He also rejected what he described as “smearing posts,” accusing Zhang of distorting events to build public pressure.

The two clashed over the meaning of “limited cooperation,” with Zhang interpreting it as insufficient and vague, while Da described it as a pragmatic way to move forward without further governance deadlock. Zhang maintained that true cooperation was impossible without institutional checks, while Da warned against what he saw as an attempt to centralize authority under the guise of oversight.

Throughout the day, both parties posted statements attempting to clarify their positions – but each viewed the other’s public messaging as selective or misleading. By evening, the discussion had shifted to broader concerns about community trust, founder responsibility, and the risk of fragmentation. Though no formal resolution was reached, the exchange made clear that Neo’s internal governance dispute had moved beyond technical disagreements into a deeper contest over legitimacy, narrative, and authority.

Community reactions and proposals

The community’s response reflected a wide spectrum of perspectives. Some expressed frustration over the lack of resolution, while others emphasized the need for continued transparency, rule-based governance, and collaboration. Core developers and Council members called on both founders to support broader governance reforms, including proposals for a more structured treasury and strategy board. Both Zhang and Da acknowledged these concerns and responded constructively to community suggestions, including improving grant mechanisms, pushing for stablecoin integration, and supporting technical upgrades.

Despite the visible friction, some users noted that public debate, while uncomfortable, signals active engagement rather than disengagement. Both founders agreed on the importance of community-driven proposals and expressed openness to constructive dialogue.

Looking ahead

While the Jan. 26 meeting did not resolve the underlying disagreements, it clarified the positions and intentions of both founders. Zhang will continue leading development on Neo v4.0, while Da has publicly committed to increased transparency, NGD asset alignment, and new funding mechanisms for ecosystem growth.

The situation remains dynamic. Financial reports are expected in Q1 2026, and community discussions around governance reform are ongoing. Both founders have publicly stated commitment to Neo’s success – though increasingly along parallel paths, each emphasizing different definitions of accountability, oversight, and leadership.

Tags: