Source: CryptoNewsNet Original Title: Neo Council debates creation of Strategy and Treasury Board to address structural governance challenges Original Link:

Neo Council Governance Reform Discussion

The Neo Council convened online to address persistent governance and execution challenges, with discussions centered on a proposal to establish a Strategy and Treasury Board to streamline decision-making. The meeting featured candid reflections on structural issues and calls for immediate reform.

Council Engagement and Stalled Proposals

Dean Jeffs outlined current operational limitations, noting that only 11 of 21 nodes are registered on the governance portal MVP, with proposals frequently failing to reach quorum. He emphasized that the Council’s structure lacks clear accountability: “When everyone is responsible, no one is accountable.” Low participation rates and slow decision-making are hindering progress.

To address these issues, Jeffs proposed a five-member Strategy and Treasury Board, elected by Council members. This execution layer would handle strategic priorities, budget allocation, and proposal review. Crucially, it would lower the decision threshold from 11 of 21 Council members to 3 of 5 STB members, while maintaining Council oversight through veto and removal powers.

Incentive Alignment and Ecosystem Gaps

Flamingo’s Adrian Fjellberg supported the proposal and identified three systemic gaps: lack of ownership over protocol development, business development, and network parameter decisions. He proposed a significant shift in network incentives—allocating 90% of on-chain GAS fees to validator nodes and 10% to fund the STB—to prioritize activity and sustainability.

AxLabs’ Guilherme Sperb Machado 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 establish long-term roadmaps and ensure contributor accountability.

Developer and Contributor Perspectives

Core developers stressed the need for a more reliable coordination mechanism. Red4Sec’s Shargon noted that without clear task ownership, development often defaults to existing roadmaps. NeoResearch’s Vitor Nazário highlighted that core development has felt like voluntary contribution with inconsistent prioritization and fixed compensation.

Neo SPCC developer Anna Shaleva acknowledged that the board aligns with current needs but emphasized the importance of maintaining coordination with strategic vision. Contributors also pointed to delayed implementations and directional ambiguity as symptoms of broader coordination failures.

Implementation and Representation Questions

Participants debated practical implementation routes. Machado and Fjellberg proposed a minimum viable version, starting with limited responsibilities and an upgradeable treasury contract. This pragmatic approach was welcomed, with Fjellberg offering to draft a smart contract outline.

Dylan Grabowski from NNT advocated for bringing in external professionals, arguing that the ecosystem’s current structure is too insular to drive real-world adoption. He emphasized that the board should focus on business development, including onboarding real-world assets and stablecoins. However, Shaleva acknowledged the challenge of identifying candidates with both domain expertise and availability.

Next Steps

The session concluded with calls for community feedback and continued coordination. Council members, developers, and participants are encouraged to review relevant proposals, contribute feedback, and identify potential board candidates. While no formal decisions were reached, participants broadly acknowledged the need for improved governance mechanisms. A follow-up meeting is expected in approximately one month.