The first big scoop of the new year is here: The public feud among NEO founders, is the decentralized project truly "decentralized"?

Just at the start of the new year, the first major incident in the crypto world is anything but peaceful.
Regarding NEO, two founders—Da Hongfei and Zhang Zhengwen (Erik Zhang)—have publicly come to the forefront over issues of foundation asset control and governance transparency.
This is not just a simple personnel dispute but a typical internal power struggle within a decentralized project.

Let's briefly review NEO.
NEO was once called the "Chinese Ethereum," one of the earliest public chain projects, adopting a dual-token model:
NEO represents governance and rights, while GAS is used to pay network fees.
In early blockchain narratives, NEO was positioned very prominently.
And this controversy is happening at its core governance level.

The crux of the conflict is actually one question: who is controlling the assets, and who is responsible for governance?
Zhang Zhengwen told PANews in an interview that he will return to the Neo mainnet and re-engage in comprehensive management, aiming to "defend the core rights of NEO/GAS holders."
At the same time, he publicly disclosed the current governance and asset structure of NEO.

According to disclosed information, the majority of NEO and GAS assets held by the Neo Foundation are on-chain and can be verified, mainly distributed across 21 initial node addresses and one multi-signature wallet, theoretically allowing real-time auditing by the global community.
But the problem arose during a previous power shift.
During Da Hongfei's request for Zhang Zhengwen to step down from foundation management, approximately 8 million NEO/GAS were transferred to multiple multi-signature addresses designated by Da Hongfei.
This move became the core point of mutual suspicion—accusations of "monopolizing financial control" and "lacking transparency."

This controversy is no longer just about NEO.
It once again highlights an age-old issue:
When a project claims to be "decentralized" but core governance and fund control remain concentrated in the hands of a few founders, where is the decentralization really reflected?
On-chain transparency does not equal governance transparency.
Having multi-signature wallets does not necessarily mean power is truly dispersed.

The power struggle among founders often reveals the most authentic power structure of a public chain.
The first big scoop of the new year may not taste good, but it is highly educational.
It reminds everyone:
In a decentralized world, technology is just the foundation;
What truly determines a project's fate is often the game of people, power, and rules.

How NEO will end remains uncertain,
but this founder dispute has already become another classic case.

On the first day of the new year,
the ideal of decentralization is once again pulled back into reality for scrutiny.