edge

Just dropped by to clown a pathological liar. I left Neo 4 months ago, after accepting that the total number of aligned individuals in the ecosystem had dwindled near single digits. Not planning to use this account/identity again. You will find me elsewhere if you are meant to.

For the record, you’re full of shit

@MeossiFabio I am very sorry about this. However, covering up the problems will not make the project better; it will only lead to its chronic death.

One day, the Neo ecosystem will learn the lengths that some individuals went to in order to try stem the bleeding and resuscitate the network. They will also learn who caused the bleeding, and who had become so satisfied with the status quo that they just stood and watched.

@DashboardNeo @erikzhang I'll give Da a million dollars to fly to Shanghai and take a selfie with a Mao statue. I kid of course, he would never take the deal. Why incur the wrath of the CCP when you already printed yourself millions dumping on the hopes and dreams of Neo holders? 😅

@erikzhang Do you think Da will end up in jail in 2026? 👀

We will know who is lying once the financial report is released.

@erikzhang @r3ejimmy Personally I can't wait to see the master plan of how taking money away from Neo N3 core developers, developer communities, and projects like Flamingo, Enclave, and Cassette, did anything to serve the Neo ecosystem.

@r3ejimmy I completely agree with your point of view. However, it is evident that some funds have entered individuals' pockets.

I dont understand the fight right now. Since the ICO of NEO/Ant, the responsibilities have been completely clear: the founders serve the neo holders and the council, and are responsible for managing the NF fund, not owning it. All funds and investment returns of NF should belong to all neo holders. The council should be the ultimate entity that make NF funding decisions.

Malice, incompetence, what does it matter now? Your leaders were absent, the ecosystem fragmented. Da pulled money out of projects trying to save Neo and poured it into his new grift. A shame the council never had the spine to stand behind me, I gave them enough chances.

Good — at least now there is a clear sign that a financial report will finally be produced. Before arguing how the treasury should be secured, let’s first clarify what exists. That is non-negotiable. You are the one who has been holding the majority of NF’s assets for years. So the question is straightforward and rests with you, not me: How much of NF’s total assets are currently under your control, and when will they be transferred to NF multisig custody? Before shifting the focus elsewhere, please answer that first.

Oh, really? Then please explain this: Why have the vast majority of Neo’s assets been under your sole control for years? This includes BTC, ETH, and countless tokens from projects invested in by the Neo Foundation (NF)—all managed by you alone. I have never received from you: a complete asset inventory, a financial statement, or even a clear answer to a basic question: how much NF actually owns. So before lecturing anyone about “securing the treasury,” answer the obvious contradiction: If multisig custody is “not negotiable,” why has NF’s non-NEO/GAS treasury remained a one-man black box for years—with zero disclosure and zero independent oversight? That is the real issue.

I owe the community a clear explanation of why I originally stepped away from Neo, and why I later chose to return. At the time, @dahongfei requested a private meeting. He told me that having two people jointly overseeing the Neo Foundation (NF) was, in his view, slowing Neo down and creating inefficient decision-making. His exact position was simple: “Either you step away, or I do. I’m fine with either outcome.” I believed him. Acting in what I thought was Neo’s best interest, I agreed on the spot that I would step aside and began cooperating with the transition of responsibilities. However, not long after my departure, it became clear that this was not a neutral governance decision. I discovered that he had begun developing an entirely new public blockchain project, EON, with plans to issue a separate token. At that point, the underlying motive became obvious: my removal eliminated internal checks, making it possible to leverage Neo’s resources while building a separate, personally controlled project that directly competes with Neo. This is not a governance disagreement. It is a fundamental conflict of interest—and not something a Neo founder should ever do. When I became aware of this, I confronted him directly and made my position clear: if you are going to build a new project, you should not do so under the banner or authority of a Neo founder. Given that he had explicitly said “either of us can step away,” I proposed the obvious alternative: he should step away from Neo and focus fully on his new project instead. That proposal was immediately and unequivocally rejected. That refusal speaks for itself. It exposed the earlier claim—that “either of us could leave”—as never having been genuine. And it made clear that this was never about improving Neo’s efficiency. What is unacceptable is attempting to retain control, identity, and influence within Neo while simultaneously building a competing personal project, potentially using Neo’s assets and credibility in the process. This is a breach of responsibility to the Neo community and its token holders. That is why I chose to step back into the discussion, to openly challenge these actions, and to formally demand full, verifiable financial disclosure of NF’s assets. I did not return for power or position. I returned because I cannot accept Neo being stripped of internal checks and pushed into an opaque structure that contradicts the very principles it was built on.

@_patrickogrady @FUCORY @commonwarexyz You've been exploring PBFT? 😅

@FUCORY @commonwarexyz We've been exploring things that permit "faster than optimistic" view latency (where the same leader produces some run of blocks until there is a fault). Definitely open MEV/censorship questions on such a leader existing but the performance definitely isn't a question lol.

Leader election mechanisms now supported in @commonwarexyz: ✅ Stable ✅ Round robin ✅ Random (via VRF) ✅ Auction (sell proposal rights in last epoch) ✅ <Your mechanism here> github.com/commonwarexyz/…

@FUCORY @ben_chain It's fascinating how much the landscape around this idea has changed as proofs have become increasingly viable for various use cases When all is said and done, the slice of the market left for truly decentralized systems may be remarkably small

@ben_chain Tevm chat has a lot of conversation with smart people about the challenges of doing this and possible designs

What if all the haters were right and blockchains really are just databases

@FUCORY Alpenglow is v cool for TTF They would swallow the tradfi HFT demographic if that crowd had any reason to move (spoiler: they don’t)

I haven't explored solana in 9 months. Has anything interesting happened at application layer there that I can check out?

@xeophon Qwen3 4b because what the fuck did they feed that thing

Besides R1: What’s the most notable open model release for you? And why?

Theres a very long list of US products that cannot be sold in the EU thanks to EU regulations. Since the favorite pastime of the Trump regime and every US oligarch is now to demonize EU regulations, I thought it would be very much worth going through some of those products.🧵

Playing around with intervention studies on the Grokking (Power et al 2022) mod-add setup. Confirmed that the grokked algorithm is low-rank in Q/K (effectively rank 1–2). Noise tests sensitivity; ablation tests necessity. When they disagree this much, does it mean the algorithm lives in a very specific direction within that low-rank subspace? Q/K turns out to be almost noise-immune here too. Meanwhile the MLP, despite being mostly irrelevant to the task, still takes ~9% damage. Maybe it’s carrying tiny logit nudges or calibration offsets that help generalization but get scrambled by noise? We must go deeper.

@FUCORY I feel like the same stuff I wanna do in Zig is the same stuff I wanna do in Rust though It doesn’t marry like Go+TS for me

I propose we call this stack Ruzt

You absolutely should use zig and rust in the same project You don't believe me. Your conventional wisdom and intuition formed pre llms tells you that 1 stack is inherently better than switching between 2 You are wrong. If you allow yourself to treat every project as a zig-rust project you will write better code more productively than if you picked one

@VitalikButerin This is highly relevant for a project of mine, thanks king

Plinko PIR tutorial: vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/1…