Community launches comparison site, alignment proposal, discussion topics for Neo governance debate

A set of community-led initiatives went live on April 14 to help Neo stakeholders compare, discuss, and contribute to the governance reform conversation sparked by competing proposals from co-founders Da Hongfei and Erik Zhang. The resources include a side-by-side comparison website, a draft alignment proposal extracting shared principles, and seven structured GitHub discussion issues for community feedback on specific themes.

The efforts arrived one day after Zhang published his Neo Governance Restoration Proposal, which followed Da’s Neo Foundation Restructuring Proposal on April 9. With two formal visions now on the table, these tools aim to make the positions accessible and channel community input toward areas where compromise may be possible.

Comparison site serves as central hub

The comparison site published by Neo News Today at proposals.neonewstoday.com presents 21 governance topics across both proposals in parallel columns, organized into seven thematic areas. Each topic carries a compatibility indicator – “Agree,” “Partial agree,” “Different angles,” or unique to one proposal – giving readers a quick sense of where the founders align and where they diverge.

The site is designed as an entry point to the broader discussion. From each thematic section, users are directed to a dedicated GitHub issue where they can weigh in on that specific area, as well as to the alignment proposal and both original documents.

Alignment proposal identifies 11 shared principles

Tyler Adams, CEO of COZ, created PR #223 as a draft meta-level NEP titled “Neo Governance Alignment.” The document distills 11 foundational principles the two proposals share, establishing common ground as a starting point for reconciliation.

Among the shared positions: both founders agree that Neo’s current governance is inadequate and requires urgent structural reform, that a five-seat Board of Directors should serve as the Foundation’s executive body, that an independent Supervisor should provide oversight separated from the Board, and that on-chain governance outcomes should carry binding force within Foundation governance. Both also call for continuous financial transparency and multi-party controls on Foundation assets.

The document leaves detailed implementation sections marked as “TBD,” explicitly designed to resolve remaining differences through community discussion rather than prescribing solutions upfront.

Seven discussion issues break down key themes

To give the conversation structure, seven GitHub issues (#224 – #230) were created as a bundle associated with the alignment proposal. Each issue covers a distinct governance theme:

• Legal structure and constitutional design.
• Tokenholder authority and voting model.
• Board composition and Supervisor design.
• Transition rules and founder role boundaries.
• Public asset stewardship, attribution, and control.
• Accountability, historical review, and enforcement scope.
• Tokenomics and redistribution measures.

Each issue summarizes both proposals’ positions on the topic, identifies common ground, highlights divergences, and poses specific decision questions for the community.

Where the proposals diverge

While the degree of structural overlap may surprise those who have followed the public disagreements since late 2025, meaningful differences remain. Da proposes redomiciling the Foundation to the Cayman Islands and introduces a specific token redistribution plan, while Zhang focuses on detailed historical accountability mechanisms and assigns Board seats by functional domain rather than background profile. Da also proposes a 24-month exclusion period for founders from governance roles.

The comparison site provides the full picture across all 21 topics for those who want to explore the details.

How to participate

Community members looking to engage can start at proposals.neonewstoday.com to understand each founder’s position across governance topics, then contribute to the specific GitHub discussion issues where their input is most relevant.

The alignment proposal at PR #223 provides additional context on the shared principles being proposed as a foundation for moving forward.