Ricardo Prado

When Neo X was launched, they announced one “partnership“ per week. It had no impact. As someone said on Discord: Neo X is a “humanless blockchain because nobody uses it”. Technically speaking, it’s also bad. It goes offline for long periods frequently. There’s absolutely no reason for a DeFi protocol to deploy on Neo X, even less providing liquidity. It’s simply not safe or even reliable.

Boris has been a long-time contributor to the ecosystem, and I personally haven’t seen any signs of misconduct from him. The post reads partly as a denunciation and partly as a personal vent, but that doesn’t make the underlying claims any less serious. There are many points that could be analyzed in detail, but I don’t have enough time right now to go through everything carefully. What seems increasingly clear, however, is that a very large share of the network’s problems over the years can be traced back to the same small set of people and communities. Another relevant detail is that he declined to return even after Erik offered him his position back. That suggests he intends to follow through with this. From what he said, what has been made public so far may only represent a portion of the full story, so it’s possible he is holding additional information for later. In the end, it looks like the same pattern again: internal community politics pushing people out when they start asking uncomfortable questions. For those who don’t know the context, he was removed after questioning COZ investments on Discord, and later banned from the server through a moderator aligned with them.

@NEO1278039 @grok can you help us understand each other? I think we are in agreement but I can’t read his exact words. Are in agreement or disagreement? About what exactly?

@ricklock99 你可以回看财务报表，也可以看他们争论的矛盾点，NGD是2019年成立，由达鸿飞管理，那么NF大概率是由Erik管理。因为Erik管理的国库公开可见，而达鸿飞管理的NGD始终没有披露地址。

Regarding the Neo/NGD situation, there is currently no public evidence of any crime. Criminal accusations should not be made without proof. Many people are trying to frame Neo’s situation as a simple story of good versus evil. It is not. What we are seeing is a governance conflict involving founders, organizations, and different expectations about transparency and control. From a legal standpoint, if someone is the lawful controller of a company, that person has authority over how the company’s resources are used. That includes making investments, creating entities, transferring funds, or structuring operations in ways others may disagree with. They are also not necessarily required to share financial information with others. Organizations are often very different from how outsiders imagine them. McDonald’s is a good example. Most people think it sells hamburgers, but much of its business is actually real estate. The visible activity is not always where the value is created. In this case, many people expected NGD to focus mainly on building products and growing the ecosystem. However, if the report is accurate, a significant portion of its success may have come from financial management and investments. Of course, companies normally answer to shareholders. In Neo’s case there are reasonable expectations of accountability toward the Neo Foundation and indirectly toward NEO holders. But if a foundation has two founders, with only one of them controlling the real-world financial structures and assets, conflict is almost inevitable. My personal opinion is that both founders should be the legal owners of NGD, which does not appear to be the case. Precisely because this situation sits in a legal gray area, it is difficult to see an easy resolution. The core issue appears to be structural: the Neo Foundation has two founders, but the legal assets and financial structures appear to be controlled by only one side. How that became possible is not easy to explain. Poor results from ecosystem spending also do not imply crimes. The report itself states that roughly half a million dollars per month was allocated to community initiatives in 2025. If those funds were distributed to community groups, then part of the responsibility for the results lies with those groups. And the results are difficult to justify. Expensive initiatives with little impact have been funded for years. Things like GrantShares, plastic rings, and dinosaur statues generated little or no adoption despite extremely high costs. Meanwhile, the ecosystem itself became smaller. Some community groups accumulated influence while producing little value, and in some cases, that influence was used to undermine other projects, effectively damaging the ecosystem. This does not remove responsibility from those who approved, and continue to approve, the funding. That responsibility likely lies with NGD. There may have been poor judgment or negligence in the allocation of ecosystem funds. But negligence is not the same as criminal behavior. At the same time, if the report is accurate and the treasury has increased significantly through financial investments, that is a meaningful result. Personally, I do not see a problem with Da Hongfei receiving a substantial reward for that performance. I have previously argued that a bonus of around 140 million dollars could be justified if those results are real. Finally, there is the situation of a long-time contributor who recently began making public accusations. This person was involved in the ecosystem for more than half a decade and also invested both time and money in the network. When someone watches years of effort and personal investment disappear, it is not surprising that some people react emotionally. The ecosystem appears to have abandoned him overnight. But this is also where the ecosystem’s response matters. If the report is accurate and the ecosystem holds roughly $ 400 million in assets while spending around $ 1.5 million per month, then clearly the problem is not a lack of money. Providing severance to someone who dedicated years to the project would not be financially difficult. And believe it or not, this entire situation can also be traced back to some of the same communities mentioned earlier. In the end, the situation around Neo is messy and full of problems, but none of that is evidence of a crime. What killed Neo was the communities, and not the founders.

I think there’s a misunderstanding in what I’m saying. What I mean by legal is “how that is presented to the government”. So we agree both should own the companies, but if the document says it only one (regardless of how that happened), he will not be granted access to the bank accounts and financial statements. That’s why I say it’s a legal issue, because it’s related to law and bureaucracy.

@ricklock99 NGC在2022年清算完4020万美元就和Neo完全脱离了关系，他属于独立的个体，和Neo没有任何关系，其次关于Erik有没有用法律保护自己，这是另一个话题了，也不是我们这些社区成员能左右的，目前看Erik正在为Neo努力，他在3月4日也参与了一场AMA，也为2026做了一些规划。

In theory or in practice? I agree it should not be, but it appears it is. And that’s where I believe the problems are coming from. If Erik is a NGD shareholder, with 50% ownership, he should have access to the financial statements. Since he hasn’t, my only conclusion is that he is not a shareholder “in paper” (but should be )

@ricklock99 这不是达鸿飞一个人的公司

Absolutely. NGD/NGC should not be owned by just one of the founders, but somehow it looks like that this happened. Seems like a bureaucracy issue. Maybe Erik decided or was convinced he didn’t need to be a shareholder of this real world company. That doesn’t make the situation easier to be resolved. I think Erik will need to take legal action to have him recognized as a shareholder.

@ricklock99 这里需要纠正一下，Neo早期的原型是AntShares，同时有达鸿飞，张铮文，同时在2013-2014，上海发起的区块链项目，2015发起ICO，当然早期也有很多帮助过ANT的贡献者这里就不一一列举了，所以Neo怎么会是一个创始人？他一定是达鸿飞和张铮文一起联合发起的项目。

That is probably the main issue: it seem that there aren’t other shareholders. As it’s presented, it looks like DHF is the only owner, and that is what justifies not sharing financial information. I should not have been like that. I’ve also said in the other post that the doc itself is a “PR” attempt and not a real financial report. It’s clearly biased and one sided. I didn’t really understand the second part of the post.

@ricklock99 其次，一个公司，不管是持有百分之1还是百分之50的股东，都有权利要求财务出公司的财务报表，这是应尽的义务，而不是一人说了算的。不要用自己的思维去带偏社区该拥有的知情权。其次不要诋毁为Neo做出巨大贡献的开发者。他并没有错，一家好的区块链是要接受批评，不同的声音，才能伟大。

I agree with all of that. The issue is that “legally speaking”, he may have full legal control over the funds . How that happened is a mystery to me. NGD should be owned by the this founders. Since it appears that there’s just one, it’s likely incorrect to say that what happened is illegal. Maybe there are illegalities , but the document itself doesn’t show that. And that’s why the situation is so complex: the document itself presents little to no evidence of what it says. So “considered what’s written “, I didn’t see anything criminal. Although the 40M part is definitely unexplained.

@ricklock99 不管是有没有职务“犯罪”，都需要一个合理的解释，从历史的发展来看，NGD已经偏离了他职能部门的权限，还有NGD管理的资金也＞NF国库，这是一个不符合逻辑的答案，最后财报是必须要发的，这是对NF负责，也是对每一位投资者必须要呈现的，这是任何一家公司都应尽的义务。

You are correct to point that out . I said that because there are people who are posting multiple accusations of criminal conduct. My understanding is that the “crime” is a bit more “nuanced”, in a sense that “it’s not proof”. However, I have to confess that this 40M is a hole in the narrative that there’s hardly any reasonable explanation.

@ricklock99 首先对于本文的一些观点表示不赞同，2019年成立的NGD和NGC，NGD为职能部门，做一些日常维护，产品宣发，代码贡献的团体，NGC是对Neo生态进行投资，同样也包含对行业的优质资产进行投资，并在2022年5月返回4020万美金，那这些资金为什么去了NGD而不是NF？请问有没有公开地址？

@kurubatermit Lol you got a good point 🤣 I can’t argue against that

NEO doesn't care; there are 157,000 NEO3 wallet addresses. That means approximately 100,000 people have invested. There are also those who hold their funds on the CEX exchange. If we include them, let's assume there are 120,000 investors and this cryptocurrency, with a supply of 100 million units, is trading at $2.50. Does ND and NF care about this? Of course not. I hope @NEOFORCEONE succeeds and everyone is held accountable.

@kurubatermit It has a great cost benefit. It definitely hurts Neo a lot having a former contributor going literally insane because of it.

@ricklock99 Why would a private company give away money for free? 🥱

@kurubatermit They have 400M USD…?

@ricklock99 I'm sure they won't do that. They're ranked #142 in the neomarket. The project is slowly dying.

@kurubatermit My honest opinion is that this conflict is not going to be solved any time soon. However, helping out the former contributor could be done in parallel with the current situation.

@ricklock99 Time will tell. But DA hasn't kept a single promise for many years. To think it will now is completely foolish. Two out of three of its promises are lies, and the third is dubious.

@kurubatermit The 'problem' is that there's no proof. Even if someone claims there may be legal issues, the question is: under which jurisdiction? If the assets are held in legal entities under his control and he can operate those funds, it means the relevant legal systems allow it.

DA's tweet to investors, "we're here to make you money," and his recent AMA statements, "starting from scratch," and what he said in the previous AMA, all suggest his current behavior is a preparatory operation for another project. I'm sure DA will flee. His closest associate told me he's a wanted criminal in his country.

@kurubatermit I don't know which promises you are referring to. It's not possible to verify the numbers provided, but that doesn't mean they are false or intended to defraud investors.

@ricklock99 So why are constant promises being made to NEO investors? For a project with assets of 461 million, selling 825,000 NEO to cover operating expenses suggests either that the financial reports are completely false or that this is an attempt to defraud NEO investors.

You are right, but that is not a crime. There are many people who are employed exclusively due to their connections. And since the results come from investments, they neglect this part of the business may be expected. Why spend time and energy on Neo if the money comes from elsewhere?

If an NGD is spending 1.5 million a month and still paying people who aren't contributing to the ecosystem, then the fault lies entirely with the NGD. I think this is completely exaggerated. If some employees aren't producing results, you fire them. The entire private sector operates this way. But this exaggerated figure is purely to justify ending the project because resources are being depleted after a certain period.

Another point mentioned in the report also deserves attention. According to the document itself, roughly 430k USD PER MONTH was allocated to community initiatives in 2025. The level of output visible across the ecosystem simply does not seem consistent with that scale of funding. For many people in the community, it is frustrating to see such large amounts of money being spent while the actual products and initiatives delivered often feel low quality, poorly adopted, or unlikely to succeed in the long term. Unfortunately, this reinforces a pattern that has been criticized for years. Certain groups receive significant financial support while producing very limited impact on the ecosystem. At the same time, new teams and independent developers struggle to compete against these heavily subsidized initiatives. This dynamic can become extremely harmful to the network. It creates constant financial pressure on the treasury, discourages genuine competition, and ultimately results in large amounts of capital being spent without meaningful progress.

Regarding the recently published financial report on Neo’s situation, I would like to share my initial impressions. They are not positive. Since this is presented as a preliminary report, I will avoid going into the details of specific numbers for now. My first perception is that the market did not receive it well. Neo dropped several positions on CoinMarketCap, moving from around #136 to #143. One of the main issues is the apparent attempt to create a conceptual separation between the Neo Foundation and NGD. NGD was originally created with resources from the Foundation and was responsible for development and ecosystem operations. However, the report presents NGD almost as if it were something structurally separate. This raises a natural question. If NGD was created entirely with resources from the Neo Foundation, why is it being treated as an independent structure when discussing assets and responsibilities? The situation becomes even more confusing when the report raises concerns about the centralization of Foundation resources, while the resources associated with NGD appear to be controlled by a single side. The implied logic seems to be that what belongs to the Neo Foundation belongs to both founders, while what belongs to NGD belongs only to one of them. Another issue is the nature of the document itself. The numbers are described as preliminary, there are no verifiable addresses for most of the assets, and some of the information presented is difficult to independently confirm. For anyone familiar with how transparency reports usually work in crypto, this makes the document feel closer to a public relations exercise than a proper financial disclosure. The overall context reinforces that perception. The writing style differs significantly from previous communications and appears to be part of the same recent “PR” package that included the interview and several coordinated posts. Taken together, the tone feels more like a narrative effort than an unbiased financial report. Another notable omission is the lack of discussion of FLM related assets and activities, despite the significant historical allocations to those initiatives. One detail that particularly stood out was Erik’s obligation of 80 BTC to the Neo Foundation. This refers to a loan that the Foundation granted to him. The existence of internal loans between founders and the Foundation is not necessarily unusual. What is unusual is the way this specific loan is presented. The report explicitly highlights Erik’s obligation, while other loans appear grouped together with other lines, making it unclear to whom those loans were issued or how much is owed. At that moment the document stops feeling like a neutral financial report. By singling out one individual obligation while leaving the rest aggregated, the report creates a clear narrative around a specific person. Whether intentional or not, this makes the section look less like financial disclosure and more like a public relations maneuver. If Erik owes 80 BTC to the Foundation, that raises several obvious questions. What was the loan for? When was it issued? Why is it denominated in BTC when most other figures in the report are presented in USD? More broadly, similar questions could be asked in the opposite direction. How much does NGD owe to the Neo Foundation, considering that NGD itself was created using Foundation resources? Have any funds flowed the other way that should also be accounted for? Another element that contributes to the tension is the asymmetry of transparency. Erik’s addresses and holdings are public and easily verifiable on chain, while NGD’s financial structures, investments, and accounts remain private. At the same time, the report suggests that NGD holds a large portion of the ecosystem’s resources, including assets with significant liquidity such as stablecoins and Bitcoin. This creates a situation in which one side of the dispute is fully transparent, while the other controls a large amount of liquid assets that cannot be independently verified. Even if there are legitimate reasons for this structure, the way it is currently presented raises concerns. After reading the report, the overall atmosphere around Neo feels somewhat sad. The market reaction was likely negative because many people realized that this was not a serious transparency document. It reads less like an effort to inform the community and more like an attempt to establish a narrative.

@Hermes_tooll Isn’t PPL outdated?

iOS Jailbreak Update 2026: Google’s Coruna report exposed a goldmine of iOS exploits, including two PPL bypass vulnerabilities that could potentially lead to the next jailbreak. Things may finally be moving again 👀