Neo Council debates creation of Strategy and Treasury Board to address structural governance challenges

The Neo Council gathered online to confront persistent governance and execution hurdles, with discussion focused on a proposal to streamline decision-making through the creation of a Strategy and Treasury Board. The meeting was marked by candid reflections, structural critiques, and calls for immediate reform.

A recording of the call can be viewed below:

Council engagement, stalled proposals drive calls for change

Dean Jeffs opened the meeting by outlining the current limitations of Council operations. With only 11 of 21 nodes registered on the new governance portal MVP and proposals failing to reach quorum, Jeffs argued that the Council’s structure is ill-suited for execution. “When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable,” Jeffs said, noting that participation levels and decision latency are hindering progress.

To address these issues, Jeffs proposed establishing a five-member Strategy and Treasury Board. This body, elected by the Council, would operate as an execution layer, capable of setting strategic priorities, allocating budgets, and reviewing proposals. Importantly, the board would lower the decision-making threshold from 11 of 21 Council members to three of five STB members, while preserving Council oversight through veto and removal powers.

Calls for aligned incentives and clarified direction

The proposal received support from Flamingo’s Adrian Fjellberg, who underscored the need to align incentives across the ecosystem. Fjellberg identified three systemic gaps: lack of ownership over protocol development, business development, and network parameter decisions. He floated a radical shift in network incentives – allocating 90% of on-chain GAS fees to validator nodes and the remaining 10% to fund the STB – arguing that this model would prioritize activity and sustainability over passive rewards.

Fjellberg’s perspective found support from AxLabs’ Guilherme Sperb Machado, who suggested dedicating Council rewards directly to the Board’s treasury. Both emphasized that for the STB to be effective, it must hold executive influence over core development, including funding authority, to help establish long-term roadmaps and ensure that core contributors are directed and accountable.

Developer and contributor perspectives on structure and communication

Core developers echoed the need for a more reliable coordination layer. Red4Sec’s Shargon shared that, in the absence of clear task ownership, he defaults to Erik Zhang’s roadmap. Vitor Nazário from NeoResearch noted that core development work has often felt like voluntary contribution, with a longstanding fixed compensation model and no consistent prioritization. Others, including Neo SPCC developer Anna Shaleva, stressed that while the board proposal aligns with current needs, any new body must remain coordinated with Erik’s strategic vision.

Contributors across the ecosystem also pointed to the need for sustained leadership, citing issues like delayed fee reductions and proof-of-node implementation as symptoms of broader directional ambiguity. Flamingo team members noted that in the absence of clear mandates and financial support, they’ve had to pursue infrastructure outside of Neo to ensure project sustainability.

Implementation paths and the question of representation

Participants debated practical implementation routes for the STB. Machado and Fjellberg proposed a minimum viable version, suggesting the board could begin with limited responsibilities and an independent, upgradeable treasury contract. The idea was welcomed as a pragmatic starting point, with Fjellberg offering to draft a smart contract outline to support the transition.

Discussions also surfaced around representation and professionalism. Dylan Grabowski from NNT strongly advocated for bringing in external professionals to staff the board, arguing that the ecosystem’s current structure is too insular and ill-equipped to drive real-world adoption. He contended that the board’s primary focus should be on business development, including onboarding real-world assets and widely used stablecoins, rather than internal coordination. Grabowski described the ecosystem as “hurting,” and emphasized that transformative change requires fresh leadership unburdened by existing dynamics.

Others, including Shaleva, acknowledged the value of external voices but emphasized the difficulty of identifying candidates with both domain expertise and availability.

Next steps: feedback and continued coordination

The session concluded with a renewed call for action with Council members, developers, and community participants encouraged to review the relevant GitHub proposal, contribute feedback, and help surface potential board candidates. While no formal decisions were reached during the meeting, participants broadly acknowledged the need for a more functional governance mechanism and agreed to continue discussions in the coming weeks.

A follow-up meeting is expected to take place in approximately one month.

Source