The two core founders of Peg publicly clashed, accusing each other of control over the project's funds, the Peg/ GAS Treasury wallet, and governance transparency.
The dispute centers on who holds the majority of Peg/ GAS assets, the commitment to transition to a Multisignature wallet, and the release of auditable financial statements to the community.
- Da Hongfei accused Erik Zhang of holding a majority stake in Peg/ GAS and interfering with governance.
- Zhang countered that the fund's assets (excluding Peg/ GAS) were controlled by Da Hongfei, lacking transparency.
- Da Hongfei promised to release financial reports in the first quarter of 2026, declaring he had regained control of the Treasury.
The conflict between Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang unfolds.
Da Hongfei accused Erik Zhang of long-term control over a large portion of Peg/ GAS assets, failing to fulfill his promise to transfer assets to a Multisignature wallet, and using his financial advantage to act arbitrarily and seize governance control of the protocol.
Da Hongfei said he had previously remained silent to maintain public trust, but now felt compelled to speak out. He announced he would release financial reports in the first quarter of 2026 and asserted he would regain control of the treasury by any means necessary.
The allegations focus on two points: control of Peg/ GAS assets and governance mechanisms influenced by the asset holder. Public information suggests the dispute is not merely technical, but concerns the core financial and governance power of the cryptocurrency project.
Zhang's response: The problem is the financial black box.
Zhang countered that the core issue was the financial black box; he argued that the foundation's assets (except for Peg/ GAS) had long been controlled solely by Da Hongfei and had never had any auditable financial disclosures.
Zhang emphasized that no audited financial reports are provided to the public or any third party. According to him, holding Peg/ GAS is to minimize risk, preventing core assets from being drawn into an opaque operating structure; otherwise, the consequences would be disastrous.
