Internal Conflict at Neo: Zhang Zhengwen Critiques Dual-Token Strategy

The long-standing partnership between the founders of the Neo blockchain, Da Hongfei and Zhang Zhengwen, has reached a point of formal separation, revealing deep-seated disagreements regarding the project's governance and economic model. Recent statements from Zhang Zhengwen suggest a significant rift concerning the continuous issuance of new digital assets and the decision-making structure within the Neo Foundation. This internal friction highlights the challenges of decentralized leadership during prolonged market fluctuations.

Governance Disputes and Executive Separation

The division between the two co-founders reportedly stems from a disagreement over operational efficiency. According to historical context provided by Zhang, Da Hongfei argued that joint supervision by two leaders hindered Neo's development speed and resulted in bureaucratic delays. The ultimatum led to a governance structure where the two founders now operate independently of one another.

Either you leave, or I do. I accept either outcome.

Currently, the management of the ecosystem is split, with no active cooperation between the two founders. Despite this lack of synergy, both parties remain involved in the industry, maintaining separate roles that influence the broader NEO and GAS ecosystem.

Concerns Over Token Issuance and Market Impact

A primary point of contention involves the strategy of launching multiple assets. Zhang Zhengwen has voiced opposition to the frequent issuance of new coins, suggesting that such actions may not align with the long-term interests of the NEO community. The dual-token model of NEO and GAS was originally designed to separate governance rights from utility, but further expansions have drawn scrutiny from within the executive tier.

Key observations regarding the current state of Neo include:

• A complete lack of collaboration between the original founding duo.
• Continued community engagement from both founders despite their professional separation.
• The existence of detailed roadmaps from both sides, indicating ongoing development.
• A passive acceptance of the situation by the community, likely influenced by broader bear market conditions.

While the internal leadership of Neo remains fragmented, the project continues to function through its established protocols. The community's focus remains on the execution of the disclosed roadmaps and the technical stability of the N3 mainnet. As the blockchain sector matures, the ability of these independent factions to deliver on their promises will determine the long-term viability of the Neo ecosystem in an increasingly competitive Smart Economy landscape.