Council faces structural governance hurdles
Dean Jeffs opened the online meeting with a frank assessment of current operations. Only 11 of 21 nodes are registered on the new governance portal, and proposals consistently fail to reach quorum. “When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable,” Jeffs noted, pointing to low participation levels and slow decision-making as major obstacles to progress.
Jeffs proposed creating a five-member Strategy and Treasury Board elected by the Council. This body would serve as an execution layer, handling strategic priorities, budget allocation, and proposal review. The key change would be lowering decision thresholds from 11 of 21 Council members to just three of five board members, while maintaining Council oversight through veto and removal powers.
Incentive alignment and funding concerns
Adrian Fjellberg from Flamingo supported the proposal but highlighted deeper systemic issues. He identified three gaps: lack of ownership over protocol development, business development, and network parameter decisions. Fjellberg suggested a radical funding shift – allocating 90% of on-chain GAS fees to validator nodes and 10% to fund the new board.
“This model would prioritize activity and sustainability over passive rewards,” he argued. Guilherme Sperb Machado from AxLabs agreed, proposing that Council rewards should go directly to the board’s treasury. Both emphasized that for the board to be effective, it needs real executive influence over core development and funding authority.
Developer perspectives on coordination
Core developers echoed the need for better coordination. 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 stressed that while the board proposal addresses current needs, any new body must remain aligned with Erik’s strategic vision. Contributors pointed to delayed fee reductions and proof-of-node implementation as symptoms of broader directional ambiguity.
Implementation paths and external expertise
Practical implementation routes were debated. Machado and Fjellberg proposed starting with a minimum viable version – limited responsibilities and an independent, upgradeable treasury contract. Fjellberg offered to draft a smart contract outline to support the transition.
Representation became another point of discussion. Dylan Grabowski from NNT strongly advocated for bringing in external professionals to staff the board. “The ecosystem’s current structure is too insular,” he argued, suggesting the board should focus on business development like onboarding real-world assets and stablecoins rather than internal coordination.
Grabowski described the ecosystem as “hurting” and emphasized that transformative change requires fresh leadership unburdened by existing dynamics. Others acknowledged the value of external voices but noted the difficulty of finding candidates with both domain expertise and availability.
Moving forward with feedback
The session ended with calls for action. Council members, developers, and community participants were encouraged to review the GitHub proposal, contribute feedback, and help identify potential board candidates. No formal decisions were made, but participants broadly agreed on the need for more functional governance mechanisms.
A follow-up meeting is expected in about a month. The discussions revealed both urgency and caution – urgency to address structural problems that have persisted, but caution about implementing changes that might not solve the underlying issues. It’s a tricky balance, I think, between creating more efficient decision-making and maintaining the decentralized ethos that drew people to Neo in the first place.
Perhaps the most telling moment was when developers described their work feeling like voluntary contribution. That speaks to something deeper than just governance structure – it’s about how value flows through the ecosystem, who feels ownership, and what motivates people to build. The board proposal might help, but it’s just one piece of a larger puzzle.
