Aaron stand with 🇺🇦

@NEO1278039 @erikzhang 希望这个链上治理机制能让有能力且负责任的人领导NEO，NEO才有未来。 哪怕将来ERIC离开也能健康运行，就像没有中本聪的比特币更加强大一样，而不是任由像DA这样毫无作为且自私自利不顾及社区意见的人一直操控，吧NEO搞成一滩死水。

@erikzhang 1. 直击核心问题 提案准确指出Neo当前治理无序、权责模糊、公共资产监管缺失、社区授权不足等根本矛盾，对症下药，而非表面修补。 2. 确立“链上治理最高效力” 将链上决议写入基金会章程、赋予法律约束力，从制度上解决“链上投票无效、决策黑箱”的行业通病，真正把治理权还给社区。

I have officially submitted my proposal on GitHub: Neo Governance Restoration Proposal This proposal is focused on restoring governance order in Neo, establishing the legal force of on-chain governance, defining the governance boundary of Neo Public Assets, and creating a clearer structure for board responsibilities, supervision, accountability, and future on-chain governance infrastructure. I welcome the community to read it, challenge it, and discuss it on GitHub. Link below. github.com/neo-project/ne…

@erikzhang Any way to force Da to get the hell out of NEO?

Response to Da Hongfei’s Proposal 1. Neo’s legitimacy should be grounded in on-chain verifiability In the blockchain world, addresses are the easiest thing to verify and the most trustworthy. Anything that can be proven by addresses should be proven by addresses first. Assets, control, and transfer paths should be brought back on-chain as much as possible, so the community can verify them directly. Da’s proposal talks about improving transparency, yet it still leaves substantial room for off-chain structures and third-party endorsements. The authority of the restructured Foundation would depend on constitutional documents and bylaws. So-called tokenholder sovereignty would largely be embedded through off-chain governing documents. Significant fund flows could still be justified through “on-chain verification or independent third-party attestation.” My position is very clear: When on-chain addresses can directly prove the facts, addresses should be the default source of trust. The community has no obligation to trust a third party that cannot be directly verified and whose identity may not even be disclosed. That kind of arrangement is absurd in the blockchain world. 2. This proposal keeps the most important governance gate in an artificially filtered off-chain structure The proposal repeatedly uses words like “community,” “independent,” and “tokenholder powers,” but what it actually puts into the rules is a filtered governance entry point. It explicitly states that the initial board will be formed from eight candidates, four nominated by each founder, and then selected by “independent community leaders and core developers.” Community leaders are defined as the heads of established sponsored communities, while core developers are those formally recognized on Neo's website. At the same time, under the formal governance structure, tokenholders may only nominate candidates after reaching certain thresholds, while the board still retains final appointment authority. The Supervisor would also first be nominated by the board and only then submitted to tokenholders for ratification or rejection. The problem with this structure is obvious. The so-called “community” is not an open community. It is a group filtered in advance through an off-chain qualification system, and only then asked to express an opinion. What makes it even more ridiculous is that the proposal writes Neo's website “formal recognition” directly into the logic for determining the initial board. A website is already under the control of a small number of people, and then that same website is used to define who counts as a “formally recognized community leader,” and those people are then allowed to decide the initial board. A design like this cannot seriously be called fair, let alone decentralized. Neo’s existing governance logic is far more open in principle. Any individual or organization should have the opportunity to participate in governance under transparent rules, with token holders expressing their choices on-chain, instead of having some off-chain gateway decide in advance who is qualified to represent the community. 3. A technical founder must be on the board The proposal explicitly states that for the first 24 months after redomiciliation, neither Da nor Erik may serve on the board or as Supervisor. I do not agree with this arrangement. Neo’s future certainly needs narrative, business development, and real-world adoption. Neo has clearly had long-standing weaknesses in these areas, and it absolutely needs more capable people to address them. But the board cannot be composed only of people focused on narrative, business, and market expansion. The board must also include people with a deep understanding of the protocol, the architecture, and the long-term technical direction. Technical expertise is indispensable on Neo’s board. I will serve on the NF board as a technical expert. There is no legitimate reason to exclude me. Neo’s future depends on putting the right people in the right roles. If business development is weak, then someone capable should be brought in to lead BD. If technical direction is fundamental to Neo’s future, then people who truly understand the protocol, the architecture, and the long-term roadmap must take part in governance decisions. Only then does Neo have a real chance to change its current trajectory. At the same time, we also need to face another reality: the person currently responsible for business development is not competent in that role. Since everyone already recognizes that Neo has long-standing weaknesses in narrative, BD, and adoption, that area should be entrusted to someone who is actually capable of solving those problems. The board can absolutely bring in a new and suitable person to take charge of business development and address one of Neo’s clearest long-term weaknesses. Neo only has a real chance to change its current situation when the right people are placed in the right positions. 4. People who remain neutral in the face of obvious corruption and misconduct cannot be trusted This issue is fundamentally about governance. It is about fiduciary duty, transparency, loyalty, and basic moral judgment. If a board director cannot even access the most basic financial transparency, if historical investments, asset ownership, control arrangements, and the relationships among off-chain entities remain unclear for years, then any reasonable person will ask: what exactly is this governance system trying to hide? Why is this kind of governance still being tolerated? More importantly, people who remain neutral in the face of obvious corruption and misconduct simply cannot be trusted. Many people like to present “neutrality” as something noble. But when faced with obvious conflicts of interest, financial opacity, double standards, and misconduct, neutrality means evading judgment, avoiding responsibility, and allowing the problem to continue. Remaining neutral in the face of obvious wrongdoing is an act of enabling it. Anyone unwilling to speak clearly about obvious corruption and misconduct cannot be trusted to defend Neo’s interests when it truly matters. A board requires judgment. It requires responsibility. It requires a clear sense of right and wrong. People who are unwilling to say what is right and what is wrong do not deserve trust. People who pretend not to see obvious problems are not fit to govern Neo’s future. I do not have any personal grudge against Da Hongfei. What I have consistently pointed out are specific actions and concrete governance problems. I made my position clear a long time ago: I would be willing to continue working with him under two conditions. First, the Foundation’s financial matters and historical investment projects must be fully clarified. Second, he must make a clear commitment to stop researching or developing projects that compete with Neo. If those two issues were genuinely resolved, I would have no problem continuing to work with him. But the reality is that neither condition has been met. And this situation was not created by me. It was created by him. The most absurd part is this: I am a director of NF, yet I cannot even see the most basic financial reports. Is that normal? Is that acceptable governance? Does that not make people wonder what exactly is being deliberately hidden? So this has never been a private question of whether one person can sit on the same board as another. It is a question of whether a director is actually fulfilling fiduciary duty, meeting standards of transparency, and showing genuine loyalty to Neo. 5. There is no need to build a new Cayman shell in the name of a “reset” This proposal tries to package a change in legal structure as a “reset.” I do not agree with this path. NF already exists. What needs to be addressed now are governance mechanisms, transparency, accountability boundaries, asset disclosure, and constraints on power. The community needs the facts to be clarified, the rules to be established, and the oversight mechanisms to be made real. Changing the legal shell does not automatically create legitimacy. Moving to a different jurisdiction does not automatically produce better governance. If the underlying problems remain unresolved, then a new Cayman structure will do nothing more than move the same old problems into a new container. The community first needs to see a complete asset inventory, a clear control structure, a full explanation of historical investments, and clearly defined lines of responsibility. Those issues must be addressed before anyone has the standing to talk about institutional restructuring. In addition, placing hundreds of millions of dollars of Foundation assets on Binance is already highly unprofessional. More importantly, isn’t that Binance account controlled by one person? If so, then this is exactly the accusation that has been used against me all along: that I supposedly controlled most of the Foundation’s assets alone. Yet in the end, the person who actually controlled most of the Foundation’s assets alone turns out to be him. That double standard and that blatant hypocrisy are exactly what make this governance problem so unacceptable. 6. I oppose this proposal, and I will put forward one that better serves the entire community The reasons I oppose this proposal are already clear. It grounds Neo’s legitimacy in off-chain structures, hands the governance entry point to a filtered version of the “community,” excludes the technical founder from the board, and attempts to use a newly packaged institutional design to cover up long-standing problems of opacity and poor governance. Neo needs a different path. Neo needs a framework that reanchors legitimacy in on-chain verifiability. Neo needs a framework that clarifies assets, authority, and accountability before discussing governance restructuring. Neo needs a framework with a genuinely open governance entry point, where the community can verify and supervise directly. Neo needs a framework that can strengthen narrative, BD, and adoption while also keeping technical expertise at the center of governance. I will present my own proposal in the coming days. It will be a proposal that better serves the entire Neo community.

@tuyouair 加拿大到底有多小？ 连一个滑雪运动员都凑不出来？

@TheXiangYang 中华民国2026第一卖国贼！

中央台办主任宋涛：“我受权宣布，中共中央和习近平总书记欢迎并邀请郑丽文主席率中国国民党访问团于4月7日至12日到江苏、上海、北京参观访问！”郑主席表示感谢并欣然接受邀请。期望两党共同努力，推动两岸关系和平发展，促进两岸交流合作，为台海谋太平，为民生增福祉。其实，郑丽文能当选就已经证明国民党原来党国体系时期的政商体系已经转投民进党，所谓的党国大佬已经昨日黄花，国民党已经彻底被共产党绑架了。而这样脆弱的舆论型政党，是最适合共产党渗透了…

@bbcchinese 台湾人民什么时候把这个女人投票罢免其职务啊？这不就是妥妥的台湾卖国贼吗？

国民党主席郑丽文周一（3月30日）宣布将访问中国大陆，对于中共中央及中国国家主席习近平的邀请表示“感谢并欣然接受”。 55岁的郑丽文于去年10月当选党主席，其两岸立场在选举期间即备受讨论。她主张恢复与中国大陆的制度性对话，表示若当选党主席愿与习近平见面。 此前，时任总统马英九曾于2015年于新加坡和习近平会面，为为1949年以来两岸领导人首次会晤。

聊两句“认知”这件小事 以前吧，聊事儿用别人举例，后来觉得有点儿得罪人，拿自己开涮比较好，所以聊“认知”这种每个人都觉得自己有、90%以上的人其实是一脑袋糨子的问题，还是拿自己家说事儿比较好 我家应该算是小知识分子家庭，父母是文革前的大学生，老爹是电气工程师、老娘是教师 在他们那代人里，这个配置谦虚点儿说也算中上了吧 我在首钢扛着“三大件”当电工的时候，有个特别的机会去当记者，然后我就辞了工作跑去以笔杆子为生了 老爹那是愁的夜不能寐 在他看来，电工是个相当好的职业，永远不怕失业。而且还是在首钢这个他干了一辈子的地方，他的同学、故旧遍布十里钢城，虽然他一辈子不入党，但把我塞进组织、然后在他老同学、老同事的栽培下弄个干部身份完全不是问题 我记得当时他问过我：你能靠笔杆子吃一辈子饭吗？ 我说我能 他沉默一会儿说道：要不你早上先去班组打个照面，反正你们车间主任是我老同学，我说一声他能照顾一下，你打个照面再去采访行不行？ 我当时下巴都差点儿掉地上：还能这么玩儿啊。当场严词拒绝 如果人生是个剧本，应该是以后我毅然决然出走首钢，放弃了电工这么有前途的职业，甚至连看场子都不干了，失去了从班组长到车间主任、再到某个厂长，最终制霸模式口、苹果园地区、娶了厂花的美好人生——但之后一路顺遂的获得了更大的成就 实际上在往后的好几年里，困顿、危险、前途渺茫的时候，很多次都在想啊，说不定那样安稳一生也不是个坏事儿 直到渐渐走顺了，有时候也还是会想如果过另一种我老爹安排的生活，现在我该是什么样 后来首钢搬迁了，原来的同事下岗的下岗、去新址的去新址 有一次我回国，在大董请父母吃饭，老爹终于说出我一直期待的那句话：当年我错了 实际上即使以我父母在他们那个时代已经高于大部分人的知识水平，依然会在“认知”上出这种问题，所以我对于人类的认知其实是不太抱有希望的 别说这个世界上大多数人并没有搜集、总结的能力，就是有，那一小部分人中的大部分也会受困于自己的见识与成长环境，无法正确作出选择 “认知”、正确的认知这个世界大概是这个世界上最难的事儿

@lexrus 诚惶诚恐斗胆问一句，有没有什么持续学习的窍门？ 对于平时听不到日语，但只是想利用日常碎片时间学习基础，目标是能在短途（1-3月）出行日本时独自应对旅行，就餐，订票，住店，就医，租车。已经中断日语学习三次了，还停留在五十音图，实在惭愧啊。

老婆的 N3 证书寄来了。这半年倒不是只刷多邻国，同时看了不少周业繁老师的教学视频，还买了两本书。上一篇推文有很多人喷，说不直接考 N2 就是浪费钱，直接 N1 也很容易，多邻国非常垃圾之类的。感觉就和喷钓鱼佬为什么要去钓鱼一样，菜场里不是有的是更大更肥的鱼么。每个人的时间、精力和兴趣点都不一样，这样在业余时间里一点一点慢慢地学一样东西我觉得挺好的，没有压力的躺平式进步。

我个人基本遵循以下标准： 1、酒后第二天不锻炼；身体有任何不适不锻炼； 2、跑步一次不超过五公里、MMA每次不超过一小时二十分钟； 3、练两天休一天，或者练三天休两天； 4、一个季度验一次血，看一下各种指标是否正常；正常频率体检； 5、坚决不做大做强，赚的够花就行； 6、任何医生要求吃的药都吃，哪怕是建议的某种维生素也吃 7、在网上可以跟人吵架，但绝对不往心里去；拉黑功能常用； 8、多在家做饭、少出门社交；多去水族馆、少去KTV；多看书、少看人 能不能长寿不知道，反正目前身体还行

@JapanBanZaiLove 如果物理世界能自由流动迁徙，财务自由的中国人选择永久退籍的人口比例盲猜不会低于50%， 哪个正常人类不渴望自由？

在日中國人減3 😋😋😋

@whyyoutouzhele 河南人的形象不再是偷井盖，还可以是胖东来。不过，这是少数现象，为了利益最大化，尽力不接触河南人。

3月21日，于东来首次直播回应"分钱"：不是我的钱分了，是大家的钱，我只占5%，不希望大家再有任何误读！ “1999年的时候，账上1700万，然后我就说：把它折合成1,000万，分给大家。分钱的习惯一直延续到现在，目的是想成就更多的人，活得更加自信，有尊严。”

@NasaQTW Disgusting

#幫擴散 #李貞秀 女士上了館長中國的抖音直播間說：「中國共產黨把我的父母照顧的很好，現在中國經濟發展也很好」 中國這麼好，為什麼要委屈求全來台灣過「苦日子」呢？ 李貞秀回祖國發展經濟 發好發滿 才是真愛 台灣不需要妳跟館長的虛情假意啦🤮🤮

一开始我以为只是个段子，查了一下发现竟然是真的🤣 如果你在中国的一线城市拿最低工资，实际税负成本接近70％！ 真是资本家看了都要流泪😭

@bondexapp You should at least explain why your token bdxn delisted by binance , or you guys actually don’t care about it.

Why Everything Is Shifting to Real-World Utility? 🎯

The Internet Got 10x Noisier, Here’s What Changed 🧑🏽‍💻

@Rhayuumi Why tangwei so popular in Korea? I know she got married to a famous Korean director and had a Korean baby , but that’s not enough. I’m curious.

탕웨이의 플러팅 방법 "당신 눈빛 역시 그래요."

@dahongfei only got two audiences ? pls stop showing off.

Yesterday, I delivered a presentation on the concept of "A Humanless Blockchain" at the National University of Singapore.

@whyyoutouzhele 知道为啥要治理无人机了吧？除了可能用来攻击国家领导人，更重要的是，这玩意这么航拍一下直接就泄漏国家机密了吗？

3月11日，重庆綦江区羊叉河，一环保博主称：村民反映，小黄河流入羊叉河多年受矿业影响，水质严重污染，昔日清澈、有螃蟹，如今水红无生物，庄稼受害。下雨污染加剧，污水长期沿河直流入羊叉河，相关部门未处理。

原來川普也聽相聲！😂 川普用郭德綱段子諷刺習近平的女翻譯。 川普暗示他在和習近平通話的時候（川習2月4號通過電話），中共的女翻譯結結巴巴不敢翻譯給習近平聽，把川普大段流暢漂亮的談話只翻譯得很短。 那麼問題來了：川普到底說了什麼讓中共女翻譯這麼害怕，不敢讓習近平聽呢？🤔💥

@Tonyliu395995 典型的中国大多数家庭，只要是中国人，谁也别把自己摘出去。

这是一个发生在上海的让人感到沉重和压抑的视频，全程没有十分激烈的冲突，但是这个儿子真的让人感到失望、无助、甚至绝望！ 子女教育在这个家庭已经完全失败！

@DyorchainX DA made mistakes and he blamed the whole project for the mistakes and he never apologized and held responsible for it . What a shitty man!

Da admits $Neo made serious mistakes, but says the focus is now clear: fix governance first and build an AI agent economy on Neo X. The vision is strong, but in the end, it means nothing without real adoption, real activity, and real trust returning. #Neo #Crypto #bullrun #Web3

@TingHu888 点开信息，绝大多数高流动性的合约山寨都没有币种简介，以前币安还有academy写详细介绍，现在都不装了，CZ以前还提到过因为某个币pump然后dump后才快速下架某个币，现在就是开超市赌场，所有责任抛给用户dyor，问题是DEX和CEX能一样吗？

有时候觉得，这都不算赌场，是屠宰场...恶庄不但可以看到底牌，也可以控制发牌，中间故意发点让你以为会赢的牌，引诱你不断加码，然后开牌干掉你。