I was told that "they" disabled liquidations on the Flamingo. How could they do that if that's exactly what makes the protocol work? Was it all a scam? FLM was developed and maintained by @ngd_neo. How was this allowed? What if users try to withdraw their FUSD?

I want to point out some inconsistencies in this post. 1. Claim of “supermajority control of the treasury.” The assertion that Erik controls a “supermajority” of the treasury and consensus nodes is inconsistent with publicly verifiable on-chain data. The addresses attributed to Erik currently hold approximately 6.7 million NEO and 3 million GAS. This figure is significantly lower than the 25 million NEO that Da Hongfei previously stated were held by the Neo Foundation earlier last year. If the Foundation indeed controlled 25 million NEO as recently as that time, it is difficult to reconcile how the amount currently attributed to Erik could reasonably be described as a “supermajority” of the treasury. 2. Claim that Erik dictates consensus node voting There is no evidence that Erik unilaterally dictates which consensus nodes are elected. On the contrary, available data suggest that his voting power is being used to support NGD-operated nodes, which are controlled by DHF, even if indirectly. As shown in the referenced screenshot, there are five addresses with sufficient NEO to materially influence consensus voting (which requires roughly 800,000 NEO). Of these five addresses: - Three are voting for NGD-operated nodes - Two are not voting at all Currently, voting power is used to elect NGD-controlled nodes, such as NGD4, NGD6, and NGD8. Community-run candidates are receiving on the order of ~100,000 votes each, which is insufficient for election on their own. In other words, while Erik may have execution control over certain votes, those votes are being used to favor NGD, not to hijack governance for personal control. 3. The “NF and I” statement and alleged resource constraints The following passage is particularly confusing: “NF and I remain committed to Neo’s long-term development and governance. Given the current resource constraints…” Who exactly is being referred to as “NF” here? Is the Neo Foundation not essentially composed of DHF and Erik Zhang? If so, what distinction is being made? It seems the platform was hijacked, but not by Erik. More importantly, the claim of “resource constraints” does not align with previously stated figures. If the Foundation truly controlled 25 million NEO earlier last year, how does the absence of 6.7 million NEO suddenly create constraints severe enough to justify emergency fiscal discipline? 4. “Figures will be shared as they become available” This statement is also highly problematic: “I will share preliminary figures as they become available.” It isn't very easy to believe that these figures are not already available. This is a blockchain-based project; balances are transparent by design. Even if funds were placed into investment vehicles, it should be easy to obtain the current balance. Suggesting that basic treasury figures are unavailable strains credibility and risks insulting the audience’s intelligence. Additionally, the post was published on December 31, and it is now January 5. If preliminary figures were genuinely pending, they should already exist by now. Finally, if, by any interpretation, the 6.7 million NEO attributed to Erik truly represents a “supermajority of funds held by NF,” then a far more serious and unanswered question remains: What happened to the remaining ~18 million NEO over the past nine months?