Council faces governance challenges
The Neo Council recently held an online meeting to address what many see as persistent governance problems. With only 11 out of 21 nodes registered on the new governance portal, and proposals consistently failing to reach quorum, there’s a growing sense that the current structure isn’t working well.
Dean Jeffs opened the discussion with a frank assessment. “When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable,” he noted, pointing to low participation levels and slow decision-making as major hurdles. The Council’s current setup, he argued, just isn’t suited for effective execution.
A proposed solution emerges
Jeffs put forward a concrete proposal: create a five-member Strategy and Treasury Board. This smaller group would be elected by the Council but operate as an execution layer. They’d handle strategic priorities, budget allocation, and proposal reviews. The key change? Decision thresholds would drop from needing 11 of 21 Council members to just 3 of 5 board members.
But the Council wouldn’t lose control entirely. They’d retain oversight through veto powers and the ability to remove board members if needed. It’s a balance, I think, between efficiency and accountability.
Incentive alignment becomes a focus
Adrian Fjellberg from Flamingo supported the idea but pushed further. He identified three systemic gaps: no clear ownership over protocol development, business development, or network parameter decisions. His solution was more radical – shift network incentives dramatically.
Fjellberg suggested allocating 90% of on-chain GAS fees to validator nodes, with just 10% funding the new board. The thinking here is that this would prioritize actual network activity and sustainability over passive rewards. It’s a bold idea, perhaps too bold for some, but it shows how deep the concerns run.
Developer perspectives add complexity
Core developers shared their own frustrations. Shargon from Red4Sec mentioned that without clear task ownership, he defaults to following Erik Zhang’s roadmap. Vitor Nazário from NeoResearch noted that core development often feels like voluntary work, with fixed compensation and inconsistent prioritization.
Anna Shaleva from Neo SPCC made an important point: any new board needs to stay coordinated with Erik’s strategic vision. There’s a tension here between creating more efficient governance and maintaining alignment with the project’s original direction.
The question of who should lead
Perhaps the most interesting debate was about board composition. Dylan Grabowski from NNT strongly advocated for bringing in external professionals. He argued the ecosystem is too insular and needs fresh perspectives to drive real adoption.
“The ecosystem is hurting,” Grabowski said, emphasizing that the board should focus on business development – things like onboarding real-world assets and widely used stablecoins. He sees internal coordination as secondary to external growth.
Others acknowledged the value of external voices but worried about finding candidates with both domain expertise and availability. It’s a practical concern that can’t be ignored.
Moving forward cautiously
The meeting ended without formal decisions, but with agreement that something needs to change. Participants were encouraged to review the GitHub proposal, provide feedback, and suggest potential board candidates.
A follow-up meeting is expected in about a month. What’s clear is that there’s broad recognition of governance problems, but less consensus on exactly how to fix them. The proposed board represents one path forward, but the details – especially around incentives and membership – will need careful working out.
I suspect we’ll see more debate before any concrete changes are implemented. The Neo community seems ready for reform, but perhaps not yet unified on what that reform should look like.
