Da Hongfei counters Zhang Zhengwen! NEO bets on AI Blue Ocean and USDT0 to introduce liquidity

Neo Hongfei concludes a 2.5-hour NGD strategy meeting, focusing on two core areas: asset onboarding and application development. Stablecoins will collaborate with LayerZero and Wormhole to deploy USDT0 and USD1. The application side targets the AI blue ocean, strengthening agent infrastructure with Neo X and SpoonOS. The background of the meeting is an internal founder conflict, with Zhang Zhenwen’s three demands all rejected.

Dual Approach to Stablecoin Bridge to Solve Liquidity Challenges

NEO co-founder Da Hongfei explicitly stated in a post-meeting announcement that stablecoins and bridges define NEO’s development path. This judgment hits the core pain point NEO currently faces: insufficient liquidity has long been a key bottleneck restricting ecosystem growth. Although NEO has technical advantages and early mover benefits, the lack of mainstream stablecoins and cross-chain bridges makes capital inflow difficult, and developers lack incentives to deploy applications on NEO.

Da Hongfei’s solution is a two-pronged approach. First, partnering with top bridge protocols, seeking collaborations with leading projects like LayerZero and Wormhole to provide liquidity for Neo N3 and Neo X. LayerZero and Wormhole are currently the most mature cross-chain bridge protocols, with total locked assets exceeding billions of dollars and supporting dozens of mainstream blockchains. Successful integration would enable NEO to seamlessly connect to a broader DeFi ecosystem.

Second, deploying emerging stablecoins. The recent goal is to deploy new stablecoins such as USDT0 and USD1, paving the way for widespread liquidity via USDT and USDC. USDT0 is Tether’s cross-chain unified liquidity solution based on the Legacy Mesh framework, handling over $25 billion in transactions across 12 chains. USD1 is a stablecoin launched by World Liberty Financial, backed by political endorsement from the Trump family.

Three-Stage Path for Stablecoin Strategy

Stage 1: Deploy emerging stablecoins like USDT0 and USD1 to quickly establish initial liquidity

Stage 2: Introduce mainstream stablecoins such as USDT and USDC to achieve comprehensive liquidity coverage

Stage 3: Attract DeFi protocols and trading applications based on sufficient liquidity

This pragmatic strategy avoids aiming for a one-step solution. Although emerging stablecoins have smaller market caps, they are more open to integration with new chains and can serve as entry points. Once initial liquidity and user base are established, attracting giants like USDT and USDC becomes much easier. This gradual approach aligns with resource constraints and is the optimal choice.

AI Agent Infrastructure as a Breakthrough Direction

On the application layer, Da Hongfei’s outlook is more forward-looking: by 2026, blockchain adoption will be driven by applications. NGD targets the blue ocean market of artificial intelligence, building on Neo X and SpoonOS to strengthen agent infrastructure, delivering practical, market-driven products.

This strategic choice reveals Da Hongfei’s deep insight into industry trends. The hottest crypto narrative in 2025 is AI Agents, but most projects remain at the conceptual hype stage. Da Hongfei’s focus on AI agent infrastructure rather than applications means NEO will serve as the underlying support for other AI agent projects, rather than competing with them. This positioning is more sustainable, as infrastructure’s moat is deeper than that of applications.

Neo X, as a cross-chain protocol, features high throughput and low latency, aligning well with the high-frequency interaction needs of AI agents. SpoonOS, developed by Da Hongfei’s team, is a blockchain operating system providing standardized development frameworks and deployment tools. Combining the two, NEO can offer a comprehensive solution from underlying infrastructure to upper-layer application frameworks for AI agent developers.

It is reported that Da Hongfei has reduced direct involvement in the NEO mainnet since January 2026, shifting focus to NeoX and SpoonOS development. This resource allocation indicates he is betting on a new generation of tech stacks rather than fixing governance issues of the old chain. From a business logic perspective, this may be a rational choice: rather than expending energy in governance quagmire, it’s better to open new battlegrounds and establish advantages.

Founder Internal Conflict Escalates with Three Demands Rejected

However, the background of Da Hongfei’s strategic push is an escalating internal founder conflict. The governance dispute between NEO’s two founders, Erik Zhang and Da Hongfei, has intensified again today. A previously scheduled negotiation meeting ended in failure, with public accusations casting a shadow over the future of this veteran blockchain.

Zhang Zhenwen posted on X that the outcome of his talks with Da Hongfei was “neither surprising nor pleasant.” He made three “minimum requirements”: establish a verifiable financial oversight mechanism, abandon the competing project EON, and authorize him to use the NEO official website and official X account for announcements. All three demands were rejected. Zhang Zhenwen stated he saw “no sincerity of cooperation” in the other party and officially called for Da Hongfei to resign from NEO’s leadership.

It’s noteworthy that Zhang Zhenwen previously publicly criticized Da Hongfei for developing EON after stepping down from leadership, claiming this constituted a “fundamental conflict of interest,” and stating “NEO founders should not do such things.” In response to Erik’s accusations, Da Hongfei immediately posted a rebuttal, accusing him of “distorting facts.” He revealed that the so-called “financial oversight mechanism” Erik demanded was actually “every transaction and expenditure requiring my approval,” bluntly stating: “That’s not a mechanism, that’s dictatorship.”

Da Hongfei said he proposed a compromise: starting this year, releasing more transparent and detailed quarterly financial reports for NF (Neo Foundation) and NGD (Neo Global Development), and authorizing Zhang Zhenwen to publish news blogs on neo.org and manage the Neo official accounts. He emphasized that both sides’ goals are aligned—“the growth and revival of NEO”—and should cooperate where possible and work independently where necessary to resolve recent governance issues.

From Black Box Finances to Control Battles and Governance Collapse

This public conflict was first exposed in December 2024 by Wu Blockchain. At that time, Zhang Zhenwen accused the foundation’s finances of becoming a “black box,” with non-NEO/GAS assets (such as BTC, ETH, and past investment tokens) all held personally by Da Hongfei, lacking any public financial reports. Da Hongfei countered that Zhang Zhenwen was the one controlling “the vast majority” of NEO’s treasury assets and consensus node voting rights, and had been pushing for years to transfer funds to a community-managed multisig wallet, but was repeatedly delayed by Erik.

This mutual blame reveals fundamental flaws in NEO’s governance structure. As an established blockchain founded in 2014, NEO was one of the early pioneers of smart contract platforms, alongside Ethereum, and was among the most watched public chains. Over time, issues such as unclear power distribution among founders, opaque financial management, and chaotic decision-making processes have emerged, culminating in a leadership split crisis.

In his latest post, Da Hongfei emphasized: “Disputes are complex, but the goal is clear. Ultimately, every action we take is to empower NEO and GAS.” This attempts to shift focus from governance disputes to technological development, but community trust has already been severely damaged. Many call this a “governance collapse,” questioning whether NEO can still effectively execute its strategy amid the founders’ inability to reach basic consensus.

The NEO Foundation previously promised to release full financial reports in Q1 2026, which may clarify some disputes. However, even if financial transparency issues are resolved, the trust gap and power struggles among founders may have caused irreversible damage to the project. For investors, such governance risks must be factored into decision-making.