The Neo Council gathered online to confront persistent governance and execution hurdles, with discussion focused on a proposal to streamline decision-making through the creation of a Strategy and Trea...

<div><div>
<p>The Neo Council gathered online to confront persistent governance and execution hurdles, with discussion focused on a proposal to streamline decision-making through the creation of a Strategy and Treasury Board. The meeting was marked by candid reflections, structural critiques, and calls for immediate reform.</p>
<adv/><p>A recording of the call can be viewed below:</p>
<adv/><div>
<div><img src="https://cnews24.ru/uploads/fac/facbc942078818836dbe1e9415928ecf29139f0b.png"/></div>
<p><iframe/></p>
</div>
<h2>Council engagement, stalled proposals drive calls for change</h2>
<p>Dean Jeffs opened the meeting by outlining the current limitations of Council operations. With only 11 of 21 nodes registered on the new governance portal MVP and proposals failing to reach quorum, Jeffs argued that the Council’s structure is ill-suited for execution. “When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable,” Jeffs said, noting that participation levels and decision latency are hindering progress.</p>
<p>To address these issues, Jeffs proposed establishing a five-member Strategy and Treasury Board. This body, elected by the Council, would operate as an execution layer, capable of setting strategic priorities, allocating budgets, and reviewing proposals. Importantly, the board would lower the decision-making threshold from 11 of 21 Council members to three of five STB members, while preserving Council oversight through veto and removal powers.</p>
<h2>Calls for aligned incentives and clarified direction</h2>
<p>The proposal received support from Flamingo’s Adrian Fjellberg, who underscored the need to align incentives across the ecosystem. Fjellberg identified three systemic gaps: lack of ownership over protocol development, business development, and network parameter decisions. He floated a radical shift in network incentives – allocating 90% of on-chain GAS fees to validator nodes and the remaining 10% to fund the STB – arguing that this model would prioritize activity and sustainability over passive rewards.</p>
<p>Fjellberg’s perspective found support from AxLabs’ Guilherme Sperb Machado, who suggested dedicating Council rewards directly to the Board’s treasury. Both emphasized that for the STB to be effective, it must hold executive influence over core development, including funding authority, to help establish long-term roadmaps and ensure that core contributors are directed and accountable.</p>
<h2>Developer and contributor perspectives on structure and communication</h2>
<p>Core developers echoed the need for a more reliable coordination layer. Red4Sec’s Shargon shared that, in the absence of clear task ownership, he defaults to Erik Zhang’s roadmap. Vitor Nazário from NeoResearch noted that core development work has often felt like voluntary contribution, with a longstanding fixed compensation model and no consistent prioritization. Others, including Neo SPCC developer Anna Shaleva, stressed that while the board proposal aligns with current needs, any new body must remain coordinated with Erik’s strategic vision.</p>
<p>Contributors across the ecosystem also pointed to the need for sustained leadership, citing issues like delayed fee reductions and proof-of-node implementation as symptoms of broader directional ambiguity. Flamingo team members noted that in the absence of clear mandates and financial support, they’ve had to pursue infrastructure outside of Neo to ensure project sustainability.</p>
<h2>Implementation paths and the question of representation</h2>
<p>Participants debated practical implementation routes for the STB. Machado and Fjellberg proposed a minimum viable version, suggesting the board could begin with limited responsibilities and an independent, upgradeable treasury contract. The idea was welcomed as a pragmatic starting point, with Fjellberg offering to draft a smart contract outline to support the transition.</p>
<p>Discussions also surfaced around representation and professionalism. Dylan Grabowski from NNT strongly advocated for bringing in external professionals to staff the board, arguing that the ecosystem’s current structure is too insular and ill-equipped to drive real-world adoption. He contended that the board’s primary focus should be on business development, including onboarding real-world assets and widely used stablecoins, rather than internal coordination. Grabowski described the ecosystem as “hurting,” and emphasized that transformative change requires fresh leadership unburdened by existing dynamics.</p>
<p>Others, including Shaleva, acknowledged the value of external voices but emphasized the difficulty of identifying candidates with both domain expertise and availability.</p>
<h2>Next steps: feedback and continued coordination</h2>
<p>The session concluded with a renewed call for action with Council members, developers, and community participants encouraged to review the relevant GitHub proposal, contribute feedback, and help surface potential board candidates. While no formal decisions were reached during the meeting, participants broadly acknowledged the need for a more functional governance mechanism and agreed to continue discussions in the coming weeks.</p>
<p>A follow-up meeting is expected to take place in approximately one month.</p>

</div></div>

Neo Council debates creation of Strategy and Treasury Board to address structural governance challenges

Neo理事会在线召开会议，讨论持续存在的治理和执行障碍，重点讨论了通过设立战略和财务部门来简化决策流程的提案……

<div><div><p>Neo理事会在线召开会议，旨在应对长期存在的治理和执行难题，讨论的重点是提出设立战略与财政委员会以简化决策流程的提案。会议期间，与会者坦诚反思，对现有体制提出批评，并呼吁立即进行改革。</p><adv/><p>通话录音可在下方查看： </p><adv/><div><div><img src="https://cnews24.ru/uploads/fac/facbc942078818836dbe1e9415928ecf29139f0b.png"/></div><p><iframe/></p></div><h2>议会参与度降低，提案停滞不前，引发变革呼声。</h2><p>迪恩·杰夫斯在会议伊始便概述了理事会目前运作的局限性。由于21个节点中只有11个在新治理门户网站MVP上注册，且提案未能达到法定人数，杰夫斯认为理事会的组织结构不适合有效执行。“人人负责，却无人问责，”杰夫斯说道，并指出参与度低和决策延迟阻碍了进展。</p><p>为了解决这些问题，杰夫斯提议设立一个由五名成员组成的战略与财政委员会。该委员会由市议会选举产生，将作为执行层，负责制定战略重点、分配预算和审查提案。重要的是，该委员会将决策Threshold从21名市议会成员中的11人降低到5名成员中的3人，同时保留市议会通过否决权和罢免权进行监督的权力。</p><h2>呼吁制定协调一致的激励机制和明确方向</h2><p>该提案得到了Flamingo的Adrian Fjellberg的支持，他强调了协调整个生态系统激励机制的必要性。Fjellberg指出了三个系统性缺陷：缺乏对协议开发、业务发展和网络参数决策的自主权。他提出了一项网络激励机制的根本性变革——将90%的链上GAS费用分配给验证节点，剩余的10%用于资助STB——他认为这种模式将优先考虑活跃度和可持续性，而非被动奖励。</p><p> Fjellberg的观点得到了AxLabs的Guilherme Sperb Machado的支持，后者建议将理事会的奖励直接拨入理事会的金库。两人都强调，为了使STB发挥有效作用，它必须对核心开发拥有决策权，包括资金拨款权，以帮助制定长期发展路线图，并确保核心贡献者受到指导并承担相应的责任。</p><h2>开发者和贡献者对结构和沟通的看法</h2><p>核心开发人员纷纷表示需要一个更可靠的协调层。Red4Sec 的 Shargon 指出，由于缺乏明确的任务负责人，他只能按照 Erik Zhang 的路线图执行。NeoResearch 的 Vitor Nazário 则表示，核心开发工作常常感觉像是自愿贡献，长期以来采用固定的报酬模式，且缺乏一致的优先级排序。包括Neo SPCC 开发人员 Anna Shaleva 在内的其他人则强调，虽然董事会的提议符合当前的需求，但任何新机构都必须与 Erik 的战略愿景保持一致。</p><p>生态系统中的贡献者们也指出，需要持续的领导，并列举了诸如费用降低延迟和节点证明机制实施等问题，认为这些都是方向不明朗的体现。Flamingo团队成员指出，由于缺乏明确的授权和资金支持，他们不得不寻求Neo之外的基础设施，以确保项目的可持续性。</p><h2>实现路径和表示问题</h2><p>与会者就STB的实际实施方案展开了讨论。Machado和Fjellberg提出了一个最小可行方案，建议董事会可以从有限的职责和一份独立、可升级的财务合同开始。这一想法被视为一个务实的起点，Fjellberg主动提出起草一份智能合约框架以支持过渡。</p><p>讨论还围绕代表性和专业性展开。来自NNT的Dylan Grabowski强烈主张引入外部专业人士加入董事会，他认为，目前生态系统的结构过于封闭，不足以推动实际应用。他强调，董事会的主要职责应该是业务拓展，包括引入现实世界的资产和广泛使用的稳定币，而不是内部协调。Grabowski形容该生态系统“举步维艰”，并强调变革需要不受现有格局束缚的全新领导层。</p><p>包括沙列娃在内的其他人也承认外部声音的价值，但强调很难找到既具备专业知识又有时间的候选人。</p><h2>后续步骤：反馈和持续协调</h2><p>会议最后再次呼吁采取行动，鼓励理事会成员、开发者和社区参与者审阅相关的GitHub提案，提供反馈意见，并协助物色潜在的理事会候选人。虽然会议期间没有做出任何正式决定，但与会者普遍认同需要一个更完善的治理机制，并同意在未来几周继续讨论。</p><p>预计将在大约一个月后举行后续会议。</p></div></div>

Neo理事会正在讨论设立战略与财政委员会，以应对结构性治理挑战。

贝莱德与Uniswap合作，将代币化债券基金引入DeFi领域，推动UNI价格飙升。图片来源：Diaro
贝莱德持续扩展其在去中心化金融（DeFi）领域的布局，此举为……铺平了道路。

贝莱德与Uniswap合作，将代币化债券基金引入DeFi领域，导致UNI价格飙升……

Polymarket 上一玩家 1 年交易 61,793 次，狂赚 10.6 万美元。

蚊子肉，滚出 10 万美元利润

贝莱德亚太区iShares主管尼古拉斯·皮奇表示，即使在亚洲，对加密货币进行适度的投资组合配置也可能推动大量资金流入市场。

他在Consensus大会的一个小组讨论会上发表了上述言论……