💙Maxi1981.ttm.base

Boaz is a gentle giant with a serene energy, often misunderstood due to an intimidating appearance. Despite looking fierce, Boaz is a kind-hearted, shy soul who seeks to help others, fiercely protecting only those closest. @TTM_Universe #Base $TTM #NeuesProfilfoto

@dahongfei So, who authorized the placement of these assets belonging to NF under the name of the private company NGD? Is this legal?

@dahongfei So, who authorized the placement of these assets belonging to NF under the name of the private company NGD? Is this legal?

We received the official AUP report today, since we can't disclose the CPA firm's title, I can only show the report which mosaics it.

@dahongfei So, who authorized the placement of these assets belonging to NF under the name of the private company NGD? Is this legal?

@dahongfei So, who authorized the placement of these assets belonging to NF under the name of the private company NGD? Is this legal?

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.

@ricklock99 $NEO is so f****** dead, as I always said... Noone believed me... 😬

Do you remember last year when several people from the Neo ecosystem went on that trip, with expenses fully covered, even paying for their “friends” to join? At the end of it, all they produced was a letter promising to focus exclusively on Neo. Of course, that never materialized. In practice, what we are happened was the opposite. Their priority seems to be building an 'exit' of Neo rather than rebuilding Neo itself. Look at what is publicly visible. COZ is working on integrations with other chains. Flamingo is launching a new project on BSC. The NNT "reporter" barely references Neo. EON and SpoonOS can be added to the mix as well. Meanwhile, core developers and the NSPCC continue to bear the technical burden of maintaining the network, while others continue receiving funding through contracts and consensus nodes, deploying their energy and resources into entirely different ecosystems. Neo has become their funding source and nothing else. What we are witnessing now is the final phase of capital extraction, where remaining treasury and ecosystem flows are used to finance parallel initiatives that have nothing with Neo, but to these groups own survival. Even if individuals like Jimmy or Erik are giving everything they have, effort cannot compensate for a flawed strategic direction. You can push forward with maximum intensity, but there is no meaningful arrival point. For Erik, I sincerely hope he has secured enough outside of Neo to remain financially independent regardless of what happens next. For Jimmy and the other core developers, I hope they begin to evaluate their value beyond this ecosystem. Within Neo, the upside from a financial or intellectual perspective appears largely exhausted. I understand that some people dislike or feel discouraged by posts like this. But as I have said before, I strongly encourage everyone to build their own exit strategy. The vast majority of actors around the ecosystem are extracting value. They are not going to reverse its trajectory. In many cases, they are a major reason why it failed. Take a look at Flamingo. If you had invested one million dollars in Flamingo at its peak, you would be left with roughly 2,500 dollars today. That represents a decline of approximately 99.75%. It is not an exaggeration. And it is entirely plausible that Neo and GAS follow a similar path. I have personally reached out to the founders to see whether meaningful change is possible. However, there are deeper structural issues, particularly around funding allocation and accountability, that are unlikely to be resolved in the near term and may ultimately require formal restructuring or legal clarity. So, while Neo may have some people with good intent and good ideas, nothing can possibly divert the current path from its inevitable catastrophic end.

To the surprise of exactly zero people, the financial report was not published. Yes, the token price saw a small bump because NGD made a few purchases, but the reality is simple: there was no real increase in market interest. And it is very unlikely that anything meaningful will change. Do you remember last year, when the consensus node operators published that “letter” claiming they would dedicate themselves exclusively to Neo? Of course that never happened. The truth is that Neo is not trustworthy in any sense. For both investors and developers, the only consistent outcome Neo delivers is frustration. What we are seeing, and what we will keep seeing, is an endless cycle of empty promises about the future, with no short-term results and no real accountability. As I’ve said many times before, this delay is intentional. People keep receiving funding over time, regardless of results. That is exactly why they became experts in stalling, recycling narratives, and constantly pushing everything into a “future roadmap” that never materializes. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. And realistically, nothing will. There are no serious projects, no traction, and no real ecosystem growth, yet, investors are still being misled with vague promises of a future that is always postponed. At this point, Neo will likely self-extinguish within 1 to 3 years.

@forevergalxy @wjcbaggio @EEEEdison1992 @0xstv3 @Neo_Blockchain @erikzhang As the founding leader, can you say whether this is true or false? 🤔

$FLM #FLM is DEAD! 🦩 $NEO #NEO $GAS #GAS is DEAD!💀

The reason I do not believe things will improve under DHF’s leadership is simple: he appears to keep ingesting nonsense. It is a continuous pattern of bad decisions. And at this point, it no longer looks like an accident. It looks like it's a choice: staying inside a cocoon of yes-people, surrounded by individuals whose only skill is telling him what he wants to hear. What is wrong with Neo? The people. A significant portion of the ecosystem is either incompetent, exploitative, or both. It is the same recycled talking points, the same empty “strategy”, the same low-quality ideas, and the same groups repeatedly shaping the direction of the network. Many of the same individuals who previously pushed plastic rings, plastic dinosaurs, and other embarrassing distractions are still influencing decisions today. Of course, the outcome will be failure. And this is the part that is genuinely impressive: Despite the crisis, the collapse in credibility, and the obvious need for a radical correction, Neo did not move from “abandonment” to “recovery”. It moved from abandonment to returning to the same wrong path. For a brief moment, it looked like the ecosystem might finally wake up. It might stop the nonsense, become serious, and rebuild around competence and accountability. Instead, it feels like Neo is simply resuming the exact same spending patterns and misguided priorities, as if nothing had happened. All of it assembled while the platform itself is visibly collapsing and entering what feels like its final moments. Yes, Neo has made some correct technical decisions over the years. But it lacks self-awareness and discernment. And in a way, that is expected: limited people cannot understand the real problem when the problem is themselves. Worse, many of them know they will never get another opportunity like this anywhere else. They know they will never find another “easy win” of this magnitude. So the incentive becomes obvious: flatter leadership, manufacture optimism, push nonsense, and protect the system that pays them. The fact is: if @erikzhang does not completely change Neo’s direction, this ship will sink. And everyone can see it. NGD under @dahongfei reportedly spent somewhere between $30M and $50M in 2025 alone. Now, combine that with a new bear market environment. If Neo continues spending at that pace, with no measurable return, the network could effectively self-extinguish within 1 to 3 years, even if the Foundation still holds hundreds of millions in non-NEO assets. That is how catastrophic the situation is. And despite Erik's efforts, I find it very unlikely that we will see substantial change, because the CEO continues to follow bad advice and appears completely detached from the reality of the network. Until DHF stops taking advice from the same ecosystem parasites, Neo will keep funding failure while trying to pass it off as progress. And to be clear: this is exactly why Neo cannot depend on DHF to make the right calls, even if he is technically capable of doing so. Not because of a lack of intelligence, but because he is isolated, surrounded by the same voices, the same incentives, and the same delusions that have driven Neo into this state. Neo needs structural independence from that bubble. It needs decision-making that is insulated from the yes-people ecosystem around DHF. Because otherwise, regardless of how much effort Erik puts in, the network will remain trapped in the same cycle: funding failure while calling it progress.

@ricklock99 $FLM #FLM has been a desaster since arrogant Mr. Noodle and team took over... 😬

When some people said Neo could become “LUNA 2.0”, at first I didn’t think it made much sense. Now, looking at what is happening with Flamingo, it is becoming increasingly clear. The main issue is the use of the protocol’s own token to issue these stablecoins. That is exactly what made Terra so fragile. When UST lost its peg, the system tried to defend it by minting more LUNA. That inflation collapsed LUNA’s price, making the peg even harder to defend and causing even more selling. The result was a death spiral. And the same type of risk exists when FLM is used as collateral. The situation is even worse because the protocol accepts FLM as collateral at a much higher rate than BTC, around 50-55 percent. It is extremely difficult to believe that the team is unaware of what this implies. fUSD is not fully backed in any practical sense. It may not have depegged yet, but it would if users attempted to withdraw at scale. According to CoinMarketCap, FLM’s reported daily trading volume is around 246k, which is far below the amount being counted as collateral. In other words, there is no market depth to support this. There are no real buyers for that amount of FLM, and if there were, the price would melt even further. Not only that, but the protocol accepts much higher collateralization when it is done with FLM than when it is done with BTC, which is completely backwards from a risk perspective. I also do not know what price feeds they are using for the other collateral assets, but at least from what I am seeing, even the BTC collateral appears to be significantly overvalued. If the pricing assumptions are wrong across multiple assets, then the situation is worse than it looks on paper. The outcome of a collateral collapse like this is unpredictable. It can range from a slow bleed to a sudden depeg to cascading liquidations that permanently damage the protocol. And, as with many things on Neo, there is a very real possibility that this will simply be swept under the rug, leaving users with losses and no meaningful explanation. Look at the image. It shows almost 350k in FLM collateral, but there's no way that FLM can actually be converted to 350k USD.

$NEO has achieved nothing during the bull market. Don't let them convince you that it will achieve anything in a bear cycle (which I believe 2026 will be).

This post clearly highlights a serious disconnect at the top. It shows how detached the founder has become from the actual state of the Neo ecosystem and from the real problems affecting it today. It also suggests that the input guiding these decisions comes from advisors who lack both technical understanding and ecosystem awareness, leading to repeated strategic misjudgments. Most concerning, it confirms a continued insistence on initiatives such as NeoX and SpoonOS, projects that have failed to generate meaningful adoption or value for years and show no credible path to doing so now. If anyone was still looking for a concrete reason to support Erik Zhang’s leadership instead, this post, coming directly from Da Hongfei, may have just provided it.

Let’s clarify the facts—calmly and precisely. First, what I asked for was not “dictatorship,” nor personal approval of every transaction. I asked for effective financial oversight with real checks and balances— especially given that you are now pursuing a separate project, EON, which directly competes with NEO. Under such circumstances, without independent oversight, there is no institutional way to rule out conflicts of interest or potential value transfer, regardless of personal intentions. Periodic reports released after the fact, no matter how frequent or detailed, are disclosure, not oversight. Transparency without control does not prevent misuse of funds—it merely records it later. Second, regarding publishing rights: you later confirmed to me privately that I would be granted publishing access. This is a positive and constructive step, and I appreciate it. I hope it can be implemented promptly and formally. Finally, “limited cooperation” without structural change is not cooperation—it is delay. The governance paralysis of Neo exists precisely because responsibility and power have never been clearly constrained. I stand by my position: without independent oversight, conflict-of-interest separation, and accountable governance, Neo cannot recover—regardless of intentions or rhetoric.

I am glad you're respecting facts now. There was and will be 'check and blance', but the exact quote you requested today was not 'check and balance' at all. I'll continue to talk with you in a constructive ways but no blunt accusations are accepted.