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理事會在線召開會議，討論持續存在的治理和執行障礙，重點討論了通過設立戰略和財務部門來簡化決策流程的提案……

<div><div><p>Neo理事會在線召開會議，旨在應對長期存在的治理和執行難題，討論的重點是提出設立戰略與財政委員會以簡化決策流程的提案。會議期間，與會者坦誠反思，對現有體制提出批評，並呼籲立即進行改革。</p><adv/><p>通話錄音可在下方查看： </p><adv/><div><div><img src="https://cnews24.ru/uploads/fac/facbc942078818836dbe1e9415928ecf29139f0b.png"/></div><p><iframe/></p></div><h2>議會參與度降低，提案停滯不前，引發變革呼聲。</h2><p>迪恩·傑夫斯在會議伊始便概述了理事會目前運作的侷限性。由於21個節點中只有11個在新治理門戶網站MVP上註冊，且提案未能達到法定人數，傑夫斯認為理事會的組織結構不適合有效執行。“人人負責，卻無人問責，”傑夫斯說道，並指出參與度低和決策延遲阻礙了進展。</p><p>為了解決這些問題，傑夫斯提議設立一個由五名成員組成的戰略與財政委員會。該委員會由市議會選舉產生，將作為執行層，負責制定戰略重點、分配預算和審查提案。重要的是，該委員會將決策Threshold從21名市議會成員中的11人降低到5名成員中的3人，同時保留市議會通過否決權和罷免權進行監督的權力。</p><h2>呼籲制定協調一致的激勵機制和明確方向</h2><p>該提案得到了Flamingo的Adrian Fjellberg的支持，他強調了協調整個生態系統激勵機制的必要性。Fjellberg指出了三個系統性缺陷：缺乏對協議開發、業務發展和網絡參數決策的自主權。他提出了一項網絡激勵機制的根本性變革——將90%的鏈上GAS費用分配給驗證節點，剩餘的10%用於資助STB——他認為這種模式將優先考慮活躍度和可持續性，而非被動獎勵。</p><p> Fjellberg的觀點得到了AxLabs的Guilherme Sperb Machado的支持，後者建議將理事會的獎勵直接撥入理事會的金庫。兩人都強調，為了使STB發揮有效作用，它必須對核心開發擁有決策權，包括資金撥款權，以幫助制定長期發展路線圖，並確保核心貢獻者受到指導並承擔相應的責任。</p><h2>開發者和貢獻者對結構和溝通的看法</h2><p>核心開發人員紛紛表示需要一個更可靠的協調層。Red4Sec 的 Shargon 指出，由於缺乏明確的任務負責人，他只能按照 Erik Zhang 的路線圖執行。NeoResearch 的 Vitor Nazário 則表示，核心開發工作常常感覺像是自願貢獻，長期以來採用固定的報酬模式，且缺乏一致的優先級排序。包括Neo SPCC 開發人員 Anna Shaleva 在內的其他人則強調，雖然董事會的提議符合當前的需求，但任何新機構都必須與 Erik 的戰略願景保持一致。</p><p>生態系統中的貢獻者們也指出，需要持續的領導，並列舉了諸如費用降低延遲和節點證明機制實施等問題，認為這些都是方向不明朗的體現。Flamingo團隊成員指出，由於缺乏明確的授權和資金支持，他們不得不尋求Neo之外的基礎設施，以確保項目的可持續性。</p><h2>實現路徑和表示問題</h2><p>與會者就STB的實際實施方案展開了討論。Machado和Fjellberg提出了一個最小可行方案，建議董事會可以從有限的職責和一份獨立、可升級的財務合同開始。這一想法被視為一個務實的起點，Fjellberg主動提出起草一份智能合約框架以支持過渡。</p><p>討論還圍繞代表性和專業性展開。來自NNT的Dylan Grabowski強烈主張引入外部專業人士加入董事會，他認為，目前生態系統的結構過於封閉，不足以推動實際應用。他強調，董事會的主要職責應該是業務拓展，包括引入現實世界的資產和廣泛使用的穩定幣，而不是內部協調。Grabowski形容該生態系統“舉步維艱”，並強調變革需要不受現有格局束縛的全新領導層。</p><p>包括沙列娃在內的其他人也承認外部聲音的價值，但強調很難找到既具備專業知識又有時間的候選人。</p><h2>後續步驟：反饋和持續協調</h2><p>會議最後再次呼籲採取行動，鼓勵理事會成員、開發者和社區參與者審閱相關的GitHub提案，提供反饋意見，並協助物色潛在的理事會候選人。雖然會議期間沒有做出任何正式決定，但與會者普遍認同需要一個更完善的治理機制，並同意在未來幾周繼續討論。</p><p>預計將在大約一個月後舉行後續會議。</p></div></div>

Neo理事會正在討論設立戰略與財政委員會，以應對結構性治理挑戰。

貝萊德亞太區iShares主管尼古拉斯·皮奇表示，即使在亞洲，對加密貨幣進行適度的投資組合配置也可能推動大量資金流入市場。

他在Consensus大會的一個小組討論會上發表了上述言論……

貝萊德高管表示，亞洲地區1%的加密貨幣配置可釋放2萬億美元的新資金流入。

全球最大的加密貨幣交易所幣安繼續保持著快速上線競爭幣的步伐。
此時，幣安宣佈將上線名為 Espresso ($ESP) 的競爭幣。
“幣安將……”

幣安宣佈將上線一種令人驚喜的新競爭幣！價格正在上漲！

2026 年投資者面臨的問題已不是 「要不要配置」，而是「配多少，以及通過什麼工具配置 」。