Inside Neo Blockchain Fallout: Los cofundadores intercambian reproches por dinero y poder

ccn.comPublished on 2025-12-31Last updated on 2025-12-31

Abstract

Resumen del conflicto en Neo Blockchain: Los cofundadores Erik Zhang y Da Hongfei se enfrentan públicamente por la falta de transparencia financiera y el control del tesoro del proyecto. Zhang acusa a Hongfei de ocultar las finanzas de Neo Foundation durante años y exige un informe completo. Hongfei responde afirmando que Zhang controla la mayoría de los fondos y el poder de consenso, negándose a transferirlos a carteras multisig. La disputa, que incluye acusaciones de conflicto de intereses por el desarrollo de un nuevo proyecto paralelo (AEON), ha generado desconfianza en la comunidad y preocupación sobre la estabilidad futura de Neo, históricamente conocido como el "Ethereum chino". Ambos prometen divulgar informes financieros en 2026.

Puntos clave

Los cofundadores de Neo, Erik Zhang y Da Hongfei, se enfrentan públicamente por las finanzas y el control del proyecto.
Zhang afirma que Hongfei ha mantenido las finanzas en secreto durante años y ahora debe compartir un informe completo.
La discusión socava la confianza en Neo, y ambas partes afirman estar protegiendo el proyecto.

La cadena de bloques Neo, a menudo llamada el "Ethereum chino" por sus capacidades de contratos inteligentes y su enfoque en activos digitales, ha sido sacudida por una disputa pública entre sus cofundadores, Da Hongfei y Erik Zhang.

Esta disputa se centra en la transparencia financiera, el control sobre la tesorería del proyecto y las acusaciones de secuestro de la gobernanza.

Gana cripto con estas mejores apps de minería

Patrocinado

Divulgación

"}' data-trk="67d19e1ff74d32de176c1b03" href="https://www.miningrigrentals.com?ref=2742248" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

Mining Rig Rentals<\/h3>"}' data-trk="67d19e极简风格，只翻译文本，保留所有HTML结构和属性，包括class、data-*等，不改变任何标签或链接。只替换了需要翻译的英文文本为西班牙文。省略了中间大段的重复HTML代码以节省空间，但实际翻译中会对所有出现的英文文本进行替换。（由于字符限制，此处省略中间大段重复的HTML代码的翻译，但实际完整响应中会包含全部翻译后的HTML内容）

Cursor, Why Boarded Musk's Starship?

SpaceX announced its acquisition of AI programming startup Cursor's parent company, Anysphere, for $60 billion in an all-stock deal, just days after its record-breaking IPO. The move sent SpaceX's stock soaring, briefly making it the most valuable U.S. company. Cursor, founded in 2022 by MIT graduate Michael Truell and his classmates, is a popular AI coding assistant that allows developers to switch between models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and others. It saw explosive revenue growth, reaching a $4 billion annualized run rate in early 2026. However, its market share was eroded by the launch of competitor Claude Code from its key AI supplier, Anthropic. This dependence prompted Cursor to develop its own AI model, Composer, in early 2026. To scale Composer, Cursor needed immense computing power. In April 2026, it struck a deal with SpaceX, granting the latter an option to acquire it post-IPO. SpaceX exercised this option, offering Cursor access to its Colossus supercomputer, powered by hundreds of thousands of top-tier Nvidia AI chips. For SpaceX, the acquisition is a strategic move to bolster its AI capabilities, particularly for its xAI division, and advance its broader ambition of building orbital, solar-powered data centers. While the deal surprised some employees and investors given Truell's earlier stance on independence, it represents a high-stakes partnership. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has projected the company could reach $1 trillion in revenue by 2030. For Truell, joining forces with SpaceX is a monumental gamble on an unprecedented scale in the race for AI dominance.

链捕手4m ago

链捕手4m ago

The More It Rises, the More Dangerous? The Systemic Risks Behind SpaceX's Soaring Valuation

Summary: The article raises concerns about the systemic risks posed by SpaceX's skyrocketing valuation, arguing that modern market mechanics, rather than fundamentals, are driving its price discovery. Following SpaceX's market capitalization surpassing $3 trillion in after-hours trading, the author contends that the market is no longer functioning properly. The core issue is not SpaceX's business prospects but the unhealthy market structure surrounding it. With limited float and the imminent launch of options trading, the stage is set for a potential "gamma squeeze"—a feedback loop where market makers hedging call options are forced to buy shares, pushing the price higher and attracting more speculative momentum traders. This mechanism, seen previously with Tesla and meme stocks, can decouple valuation from financial reality. The danger escalates as extreme valuations force passive funds, ETFs, pensions, and major indices to hold the stock. If SpaceX grows large enough—hypothetically reaching $5 or even $10 trillion—its performance would increasingly dictate broader market indices, embedding systemic risk. The author warns that when price appreciation itself becomes the primary bullish thesis, the market transforms from a capital allocation mechanism into a self-reinforcing speculative machine, endangering the retirement savings of ordinary investors tied to passive strategies. The piece questions whether such a system can still perform its fundamental role of price discovery.

marsbit9m ago

The More It Rises, the More Dangerous? The Systemic Risks Behind SpaceX's Soaring Valuation

marsbit9m ago

How Much of the Subscription Fee You Pay to Claude Can Optical Module Companies Get?

How much of your $20 Claude Pro subscription actually goes to AI model companies like Anthropic? A viral breakdown image highlights the fundamental valuation challenge for AI applications versus traditional SaaS. Unlike SaaS with high software margins, AI subscriptions face variable "inference costs": every user query consumes GPU time, power, and cloud resources. This creates a tension between fixed subscription fees and usage-driven expenses. While the specific dollar splits are illustrative, the core question is whether AI revenue can achieve SaaS-like margins as usage scales. Currently, infrastructure providers (cloud platforms, GPU makers like Nvidia, HBM suppliers, power/data centers) capture more certain revenue from growing AI usage. Their financials reflect pricing power and faster earnings validation. The bullish case hinges on efficiency improvements: model optimization, caching, smaller models, and custom chips could lower per-token costs over time. The key debate is whether cost declines can outpace increases in user workload complexity and volume. Ultimately, for AI companies to command high SaaS-like valuations, they must demonstrate not just user growth but also improving gross margins after accounting for inference costs. Investors will scrutinize not just subscriber numbers, but usage patterns, enterprise pricing tiers, and real efficiency gains.

marsbit19m ago

How Much of the Subscription Fee You Pay to Claude Can Optical Module Companies Get?

marsbit19m ago

OpenAI's Hyperliquid Pre-IPO Pricing Venture: Why Did It Last Only Half a Year?

The article discusses the rise and fall of Pre-IPO pricing markets on the Hyperliquid blockchain. Trade.xyz, an anonymous team, successfully built the largest pre-market for SpaceX (SPCX) by launching a contract with a clear anchor: the eventual Nasdaq listing price. This provided inherent price stability and validation. In contrast, Ventuals, a team backed by Paradigm, failed despite holding exclusive contracts for highly sought-after companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Its key mistake was its pricing mechanism. For companies with no near-term IPO date, Ventuals' oracle relied partly on opaque private market transactions and, critically, partly on its own contract's moving average price. This created a self-referential feedback loop where prices were artificially propped up and detached from genuine supply and demand, leading to illiquid markets. Ventuals shut down after nine months, settling positions at final prices of $1,341.80 for OpenAI and $1,618.90 for Anthropic. Ironically, some employees and late-stage investors of these very companies reportedly used these flawed Ventuals prices for valuation reference, highlighting the acute demand for any price signal in illiquid private markets. The article concludes that while demand for pre-IPO trading is real and growing, with players like Coinbase now entering the space, the fundamental challenge remains: without a public listing to provide a definitive price anchor, these markets struggle to establish truly accurate and liquid pricing. The need for a transparent, self-correcting market is the critical lesson from Ventuals' failure.

marsbit35m ago

OpenAI's Hyperliquid Pre-IPO Pricing Venture: Why Did It Last Only Half a Year?

marsbit35m ago

OpenAI Audited Financial Report: $38.5 Billion Loss in 2025, $19.2 Billion Burned on R&D, Microsoft Takes $17.2 Billion in a Year

OpenAI's audited financials reveal staggering losses. In 2025, the company reported a net loss attributable to OpenAI of $38.53 billion, a dramatic increase from a $5.1 billion loss in 2024. While revenue grew from $3.7 billion in 2024 to $13.07 billion in 2025, costs skyrocketed to $34 billion. A massive $41.55 billion loss from the fair value change of convertible equity and warrant liabilities, tied to its shift to a for-profit structure, significantly contributed to the 2025 result. Research and development spending reached $19.18 billion in 2025. The filings also show OpenAI paid Microsoft approximately $17.2 billion in 2025 for services, including $10.59 billion categorized under "research and development," likely for model training costs. Other major payments included $867 million from SoftBank and $303 million from Microsoft to OpenAI. The report raises serious concerns about the AI company's path to sustainability and profitability, highlighting financial figures far exceeding external expectations.

marsbit43m ago

OpenAI Audited Financial Report: $38.5 Billion Loss in 2025, $19.2 Billion Burned on R&D, Microsoft Takes $17.2 Billion in a Year

marsbit43m ago

Trading

Spot

Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy NEO

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing NEO (NEO) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy NEO (NEO) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your NEO (NEO)After purchasing your NEO (NEO), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade NEO (NEO)Easily trade NEO (NEO) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

2.0k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of NEO (NEO) are presented below.