Da Hongfei posted about a renewed internal dispute around NEO governance and treasury control, tying part of the argument to Neo’s reported investment in Binance dating back to 2017.
Da said the Binance investment remains a significant financial asset for the Neo Foundation and NGD and should be treated as a community asset rather than managed in a “dictatorial” way. He added that one of his goals is to resolve and realize the value of that investment within the next two years, with the aim of putting capital to work for the Neo ecosystem.
Da’s statement also escalated the tone of the dispute. Both PANews and Odaily relayed his allegation that Erik Zhang’s current agenda includes character smears, threats to personal safety, and an attempted hostile takeover.
The same PANews report said Erik Zhang responded by telling Da to stop using Binance to “grab attention,” arguing that the dialogue should focus on Neo’s internal governance and accountability rather than external brand association or distraction.
Separate coverage from Binance News on Binance Square described Da’s broader rebuttal as a response to “distortion of facts,” and noted he still pushed for limited cooperation while outlining steps like quarterly financial disclosures.
The moment a founder dispute touches a third-party brand and an alleged strategic holding, the narrative tends to expand beyond community governance into reputational and legal territory. That expansion can turn a governance fight into a multi-day story built on screenshots, timelines, and competing “receipts.”
It also raises a high-stakes question for token communities: if an investment is framed as a community asset, who has the authority to negotiate, disclose, and execute decisions around it, and what transparency standard is acceptable when the asset is used to justify strategic direction.
The credibility of the story hinges on primary records and any official clarifications. The most important near-term signals are the original statements from both parties on X, plus whether any formal entities linked to Neo governance and development publish additional documentation or clarifications.
If the Binance investment becomes the headline hook, attention is likely to shift from rhetoric to evidence: what exactly exists, who controls it, and what mechanism could “realize” value without creating fresh governance disputes.
Da Hongfei’s post turns a long-running Neo governance feud into a broader narrative that mixes treasury control, alleged personal threats, and the strategic value of a reported Binance investment. If either side publishes more documentation, or if any connected entities issue clarifications, the story could quickly move from community drama to a sustained industry-wide debate.
The post Da Hongfei Says Neo Should Unlock Binance Investment Value as Dispute Intensifies appeared first on Crypto Adventure.
Also read: Quel est ce gros projet Nvidia que vous devriez connaître avant d’acheter un nouveau PC ?
