Neo's governance fight is now fully public. Co-founders Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang have posted competing plans for how the Neo Foundation should be restructured, after months of visible disagreement over who should control the chain's public assets and long-term direction.

What each side wants

Da's April 9 proposal says the current Singapore foundation structure is no longer fit for purpose because it can be deadlocked by either founder. He proposes redomiciling Neo into a memberless Cayman foundation company, creating a five-seat board, appointing an independent supervisor, and temporarily barring both founders from those roles for the first 24 months.

Zhang's counterproposal takes a different route. It argues Neo governance should be anchored more explicitly in on-chain verifiable community authorization, with clearer rules for how directors, supervisors, budgets, and "Neo Public Assets" are reviewed and constrained.

Why it matters

The conservative takeaway is not that either plan has won. It is that a major public blockchain is still trying to formalize who can control treasury assets, who can supervise that control, and how tokenholders can intervene when governance breaks down.

That makes this more than a founder dispute. For infrastructure networks that still depend on small insider circles, Neo's public split is a reminder that governance design matters most when trust between insiders fails.