Interview with Zhang Zhengwen: Neo during surgery

Heroes rise and fall with the times; once you enter the world of martial arts, time flies.

These past few days, while writing, a movie line kept popping into my head: "The martial arts world, what is the martial arts world?"

In Jin Yong's world, those with excessive greed, anger, and delusion often find themselves trapped in the cage of unfulfilled desires. For someone like Ren Woxing, with his maxed-out martial arts skills and overflowing ambition, there are no real opponents in the real world; his greatest enemy is time. A strong will, an aging body—it's like a curse written by fate. Strong men only think about becoming stronger, while Linghu Chong wants to retire to Niubei Mountain. Ren Woxing summed it up well: Where there are people, there are grudges; where there are grudges, there is the martial arts world. People are the martial arts world; how can you retreat?

A Broken Partnership

I've seen too many breakups and reunions, and heard too many stories of dragon-slaying heroes becoming dragons themselves. It can only be said that when power reaches a certain level, people inevitably become alienated; this is a law. When there are irreconcilable conflicts between interests and kinship, the mysterious Eastern culture has a simple solution. In tomb raiding, a father and son team must emerge first. But what about partners who come together for profit? This problem is almost unsolvable.

Zhang Zhengwen, who hadn't appeared for a long time, returned to the community in a typical way during a bear market: the two founders publicly broke up, and the conflict reached a boiling point. They even brought bodyguards to their meeting in Hong Kong (just kidding). I won't go into Neo's history; it's a rare domestic project that has survived through economic cycles to this day.

I privately asked him why he left, and here's his explanation from his pinned post: Years ago, Da Hongfei suggested that having two people jointly oversee the Neo Foundation would slow down Neo's development and lead to inefficient decision-making. His point was simple: "Either you leave, or I leave. I accept either outcome." I believed him. I thought this was in Neo's best interest, so I agreed to leave on the spot. However, shortly after I left, he started developing a completely new public blockchain project, EON, and planned to issue a separate token. My departure eliminated internal checks and balances, allowing him to utilize Neo's resources while building an independent, personally controlled project that would directly compete with Neo. This wasn't a governance disagreement; it was a fundamental conflict of interest—a mistake the founders of Neo should never make. When I realized this, I confronted him directly and clearly stated my position: If you're going to create a new project, you shouldn't do it in the name or with the authorization of the Neo founders. Given his explicit statement that "either of us can leave," I proposed an obvious alternative: He should leave the Neo project and dedicate himself fully to his new project. The proposal was immediately and decisively rejected. This rejection speaks volumes; the previous statement that “any one of us can leave” was never true. It also clearly demonstrates that this (removing me) was never intended to improve Neo's efficiency. Unacceptable behavior is attempting to retain control, identity, and influence over Neo while building a competing personal project, potentially exploiting Neo's assets and reputation in the process. This violates our responsibility to the Neo community and its token holders. Therefore, I have chosen to re-engage in the discussion, publicly question these actions, and formally demand full and verifiable disclosure of the foundation's financial assets. I am not returning for power or status. I am returning because I cannot accept Neo being stripped of its internal checks and balances and pushed into an opaque structure, which is entirely contrary to the principles upon which it was founded. I asked him, “He said one of the two had to leave, and you agreed. You didn't think much about it at the time?” He said, “Yes.” Currently, Neo is divided between its two founders, with no cooperation whatsoever. Perhaps due to the bear market, the community seems to have passively accepted this situation. The conflict isn't ignored, but rather a matter of helplessness. I interviewed Zhang Zhengwen, and all his answers were direct, without any business jargon. This also means their conflict is more acute than I imagined. Q1: What is the current state of your communication after the recent breakdown in negotiations? My main disagreements with Da Hongfei are twofold: First, I believe that as one of Neo's founders, he shouldn't keep issuing new tokens and developing public chains that compete with Neo, such as ONT and EON. Second, the foundation's accounts have long been chaotic and lack transparency; even my request to see the financial statements as a founder was refused. Regarding the first question, I believe there's no point in further communication, as he has repeatedly stated that he won't rule out the possibility of continuing to issue tokens (EON). Regarding the second question, the promised financial report has been repeatedly delayed, and everyone is anxiously waiting. Any communication would only be a matter of urging them to release more information.

Q2: You have repeatedly emphasized the importance of financial transparency, pointing out the existence of a "black box" in the foundation's assets. Da Hongfei promised to release a preview of the financial report. Is this report the kind of "verifiable financial oversight mechanism" you expect?

Regarding this question, February 15th has long passed, and no financial report has been released. The foundation's finance department previously told me that a rough financial report could be prepared in just one week. Now, several months have passed, and I don't understand why a financial report takes so long to prepare. Furthermore, even without a financial report, the address of the foundation's treasury should be disclosed; this is something that can be done in seconds. I don't understand why it's not being made public.

Q3: Regarding the "EON" project (which later evolved into SpoonOS/Neo X related plans), you previously accused it of using Neo resources for an independent project, creating a conflict of interest. Now, the Da Hongfei team is still pushing forward the development of Neo X and AI applications. After you take over the mainnet, how will you handle the relationship between the NEO mainnet and the Neo X sidechain? Will you "sever" or allow them to "compete"? EON is not NeoX or SpoonOS. NeoX and SpoonOS are projects within the Neo ecosystem. Although I don't think they have much practical use, I don't object to spending money on projects within the Neo ecosystem. But in my opinion, EON and Neo have no relation whatsoever. Q4: You previously criticized Neo for creating a "false prosperity" through hackathons, with many projects disappearing after winning awards. Now that you've returned to the mainnet, how do you view this investment? I will no longer invest resources in hackathons. I will focus on real-world business applications, seeking partnerships with real-world businesses and exploring the application scenarios of underlying public blockchains in the real world. Q5: Da Hongfei mentioned that the assets invested in an exchange in 2017 are significant financial assets for the community, and he planned to resolve them within two years. What is your attitude towards handling this "historical debt"? Who should manage these assets? I currently see no reason or motivation to exit this investment. Q6: How do you define your governance structure after your return? Will you build a real-time auditing system similar to a multi-signature treasury? Or is there a more innovative on-chain governance solution? I have created a new organization, NGR (Neo Global Resources), to replace the previously functionally deficient NF and NGD. NGR currently has no assets. In the future, asset operations will be conducted in a completely open and transparent manner. Regarding the new strategy: Q7: Da Hongfei's team recently announced a new strategy focusing on two pillars: "assets (stablecoins/cross-chain bridges)" and "applications (AI)," aiming to empower NEO and GAS. What are your thoughts on this strategy? If you were in charge, what would be different? Stablecoins are a problem that any public chain must solve, and this direction is not problematic. However, Da Hongfei has held the resources of the entire foundation for many years and has not solved it, so I doubt whether he truly has the ability. As for AI, everyone knows that AI is inevitably the future trend, so this direction is not problematic either. However, again, SpoonOS, as his blockchain + AI project, has not yet brought any value to Neo, and I worry whether he truly has the ability to succeed in the AI ​​field. Finally, I'm also making moves in the areas of stablecoins and AI, which will take some time. I don't plan to reveal anything too early to avoid disappointing everyone if things don't go smoothly. Q8: You mentioned that "Neo previously lacked real users." Now, Da Hongfei plans to introduce USDT/USDC and develop AI applications to attract real demand. Do you think this "relying on external assets and AI narratives" can truly solve Neo's user dilemma? What is the current state of Neo's developer ecosystem? I don't think it can. There are so many stablecoins and so many AI platforms, why would users choose you? The logic here is reversed. It's not about attracting users with stablecoins; stablecoins are a necessary condition, an essential infrastructure. With stablecoins, users can use your application. So ultimately, we still need to explore application scenarios. As for the developer ecosystem, it's currently quite weak, and I need to put a lot of effort into solving it. Q9: The Neo X sidechain and the SpoonOS framework are currently the focus of technology. What do you think are Neo's differentiating advantages in the EVM-compatible sidechain race? (I'm not an expert on technical issues, so my questions might be a bit superficial. Here, I can answer the technical advantages I want to address.) There are no advantages. It comes down to the same question: there are hundreds, if not 1000, EVM-compatible chains. Why use yours? Ultimately, why not just use Ethereum? I raised this question several years ago, but Da Hongfei insisted on pursuing this direction. Currently, NeoX has no users or applications, proving this direction a failure and wasting a lot of Neo's resources and development time. Q10: Neo's price is currently far from its historical high. What would you most like to say to long-term Neo and GAS holders? How long do you think it will take for them to see the "value return" you bring? What I want to say is that currently, the blockchain industry, apart from exchanges, hasn't found a real-world application scenario. The road ahead is long, and the outcome is far from certain. As for pricing, I personally haven't sold any Neo units; I've been on the rollercoaster with everyone.

Q12: Looking ahead to the second half of 2026, what are the three most important KPIs you've set for the mainnet?

1-2 large-scale commercial partnerships and explore more than 5 real-world application scenarios; rebuild Neo's ecosystem investment fund to fill the gap in its ability to generate revenue due to the separation of NGC; significant progress in Neo4 development, reaching at least 50% completion.

Q11: If you were to use a metaphor to describe Neo now, would you say it's more like a "phoenix rising from the ashes" or a "patient undergoing major surgery"?

The patient's surgery isn't finished yet.

Based on the interview results, Neo's biggest problem is still governance.

Without a solution to the core debate over financial transparency, the community will remain divided. Neo's predicament, to some extent, is a microcosm of the challenges many established projects face during industry iterations. Behind the power struggles and controversies surrounding financial transparency lies a more fundamental question: when a project has passed its early startup phase, and former allies have become those with differing opinions, how can a new consensus be found amidst the cracks? On the optimistic side, both founders are still actively engaging with the community and have a detailed roadmap. Compared to other top-tier projects whose market prices have plummeted to near zero, Neo still has hope. Division is never the end, just as reconciliation is never the final outcome. Since persuasion with people is futile, let the market be the judge. No matter how intense the governance debate or how grand the technological roadmap, if the coin price doesn't stabilize, it's all just empty talk. I told Zhang Zhengwen: Whoever can get Neo to have three consecutive large bullish days will be the one in charge. He said: Yes. Time will tell.