Why is Covenant AI Fleeing Bittensor?

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-10Last updated on 2026-04-10

Abstract

Covenant AI announced its exit from the Bittensor network, accusing co-founder Jacob Steeves (Const) of centralized control and governance abuses. The team claimed Steeves unilaterally suspended subnet emissions, revoked community management permissions, deprecated infrastructure without due process, and exerted economic pressure through token sales. Covenant AI highlighted its achievement in developing Covenant-72B—a 72-billion-parameter language model trained collaboratively by over 70 contributors on consumer hardware—as proof that decentralized AI training is viable. However, they argued that Bittensor’s governance is effectively controlled by a small group, with Steeves retaining ultimate authority, contradicting the network’s promised decentralized and permissionless nature. The incident sparked community debate, with some critics pointing to Covenant AI founder Sam Dare’s prior sale of 37,000 $TAO tokens. Meanwhile, $TAO’s price dipped amid the controversy. Covenant AI reaffirmed its commitment to decentralized AI and will continue its mission independently, emphasizing that true decentralization cannot coexist with centralized control.

Editor's Note: Covenant AI has issued a statement announcing its withdrawal from Bittensor, accusing its co-founder Jacob Steeves (Const) of centralizing power in network governance, including suspending its subnet emissions, revoking community management permissions, and applying pressure through token sales.

Previously, Covenant AI was responsible for operating several key subnets, covering pre-training, compute scheduling, and fine-tuning, and had completed a large-scale language model trained collaboratively by multiple parties on general-purpose hardware. This achievement had garnered industry attention and was mentioned by figures such as Jensen Huang and Jack Clark.

The controversy is not one-sided. Some critics have pointed the finger at Covenant AI founder Sam Dare, claiming he sold approximately 37,000 $TAO tokens; meanwhile, supporters believe this conflict may push the network towards a more community-oriented governance model.

On the market front, the price of $TAO fell from around $340 to $286 during the event, before recovering to $291, accompanied by a significant increase in trading volume.

Discussions surrounding governance structure, power boundaries, and incentive mechanisms are ongoing.

Below is the original text:

Covenant AI was founded on a simple, steadfast belief: the training of frontier AI models should not be controlled by any single entity.

For the past two years, our team has been putting this vision into practice. Covenant-72B—a model with 72 billion parameters, trained collaboratively by over 70 independent contributors on general-purpose hardware without requiring permission—has become the largest decentralized pre-training practice for a large model in history. It received recognition from NVIDIA's CEO, was cited by the co-founder of Anthropic, and contributed to a 90% surge in the ecosystem we helped build.

We never actively sought attention. We simply wanted to prove that decentralized training is feasible. And when the results speak for themselves, attention naturally follows.

We want to be perfectly clear about what all this means.

When a single actor can suspend a subnet's emissions, strip node owners of control over their community spaces, publicly "deprecate" projects without due process, and even apply economic pressure through token sales to force compliance—this is no longer decentralization, but centralized control disguised as decentralization.

Every participant in the ecosystem—miners, validators, and investors—should be aware that this power exists and has been exercised by Jacob Steeves (Const). These actions were not taken to safeguard the network's health, but to regain control over a team that had become too independent and difficult to manage. A subnet owner capable of autonomously building a community, making independent decisions, and operating without permission is, in itself, a threat to those whose power is built on the premise that "everyone must depend on them."

The problem with decentralization goes beyond individual incidents.

Bittensor effectively operates under a "triumvirate"—three individuals jointly manage the multi-signature permissions required for network upgrades, packaged as "distributed governance." But that is not the reality. It is more like a "decentralization performance." Jacob Steeves effectively controls this structure, refuses to implement any substantive decentralization of power, and, at his discretion, bypasses processes and consensus to unilaterally deploy changes. Other involved parties act more like legal "shields"—they bear responsibility and face litigation risks, while the true controller remains insulated.

This network constantly talks about governance and decentralization but has never truly implemented it. Power has never left the hands of one individual.

This is the core of the problem.

Bittensor's fundamental promise, the key premise that attracted developers, miners, validators, and investors into this ecosystem, is that it is not controlled by any single entity. But this promise is not true.

Given this reality, we can no longer continue building on this network responsibly. The fundamental representation we made to investors—that this infrastructure is decentralized and permissionless—contradicts the actual governance. We cannot raise funds, attract talent, or ask our community to invest resources on a foundation that can be shaken at any moment by a single will. We are unwilling to pass this risk on to those who have trusted us.

Therefore, with deep disappointment, we announce: Covenant AI will exit the Bittensor network.

Over the past few weeks, Jacob Steeves (aka Const) has taken a series of actions against Covenant AI's operations that are fundamentally incompatible with the principles the network proclaims. These include suspending our subnet's emissions, stripping our administrative rights to our own community channels, unilaterally declaring our subnet infrastructure "deprecated," and applying direct economic pressure through large-scale, public token sales at critical moments of operational conflict.

These were not governance decisions made through transparent, decentralized consensus. They were punitive actions imposed by someone who never truly relinquished control, while publicly claiming he no longer controls the network.

Covenant AI's mission remains unchanged. Decentralized, permissionless AI training is not a feature exclusive to Bittensor; it is a technical capability we will continue to advance. Our research, team, models, and vision will move forward together. We are already progressing on some very important new projects and will share updates with the public soon.

To our community, miners, and everyone who contributed compute, time, and belief to Covenant-72B: you have proven something once thought impossible. This achievement does not belong to a Discord server, nor is it dependent on a network's governance structure. It resides in the research itself, the model itself, and within this team. Wherever we go next, we will continue to earn your trust.

Decentralization is not a marketing narrative that can be overturned when inconvenient. It is a promise to every builder, miner, and investor—a promise that no one can do to others what we have experienced. Either be truly decentralized, or stop pretending.

—Sam Dare, Founder of Covenant AI

Related Questions

QWhy did Covenant AI decide to leave the Bittensor network?

ACovenant AI left Bittensor due to concerns over centralized control by co-founder Jacob Steeves (Const), including actions like unilaterally suspending subnet emissions, revoking community management permissions, and applying economic pressure through token sales, which contradicted the network's promised decentralized and permissionless principles.

QWhat was Covenant AI's key achievement on Bittensor before the conflict?

ACovenant AI developed Covenant-72B, a 72-billion-parameter language model, which was the largest decentralized pre-training practice of a large model to date. It was collaboratively trained by over 70 independent contributors on commodity hardware and received recognition from industry figures like NVIDIA's CEO and Anthropic's co-founder.

QHow did Jacob Steeves (Const) exert control over Covenant AI, according to the article?

AJacob Steeves allegedly exercised centralized power by pausing Covenant AI's subnet emissions, removing their administrative control over community channels, unilaterally declaring their subnet infrastructure 'deprecated,' and applying economic pressure through large, public token sales during operational conflicts, bypassing transparent governance processes.

QWhat impact did the conflict have on the $TAO token market?

ADuring the event, the price of $TAO dropped from approximately $340 to $286, later recovering to $291, accompanied by a significant increase in trading volume, reflecting market reactions to the governance dispute and Covenant AI's exit.

QWhat is Covenant AI's stance on decentralized AI training post-exit from Bittensor?

ACovenant AI remains committed to decentralized, permissionless AI training, emphasizing that it is not exclusive to Bittensor. They plan to continue their mission, research, and development of new projects independently, upholding the promise of a truly decentralized infrastructure free from single-entity control.

Related Reads

STRC Breaks Below $95: Why Does It Continue to Depeg? Is There Default Risk?

"STRC Falls Below $95: Why the Persistent Depegging and Is There Default Risk?" The article discusses the recent decline in the price of STRC, a perpetual preferred stock issued by Strategy (MSTR) designed to trade around a $100 par value. As of publication, STRC traded at $94.65, raising market concerns. STRC is described as a high-yield cash flow product, offering an 11.50% annual dividend paid monthly. Its "preferred" status grants it priority over common stock for dividends and in liquidation. Key reasons cited for the price depegging include: 1. **Bitcoin's Price Drop:** MSTR's assets are heavily tied to Bitcoin (BTC), which fell over 21% from its recent high, pressuring all Strategy-related products. 2. **Competitive Pressure:** Rival Strive Asset Management's similar product, SATA, offers daily dividends and has maintained its $100 par value with a ~13% yield. In response, Strategy has proposed changing STRC's dividend frequency from monthly to bi-weekly, pending shareholder vote. 3. **Technical Selling:** A break below $100 may have triggered algorithmic selling and stop-losses, exacerbating the decline. Regarding default risk, the analysis suggests it is currently low. Strategy founder Michael Saylor confirmed the June 2026 dividend rate remains at 11.50% with no cuts or suspensions. The company's massive reserve of 843,706 BTC provides a significant backstop for its obligations. Industry opinions are mixed. Some analysts view the BTC holdings as reliable support for dividends, while critics like Peter Schiff warn of potential dividend cuts leading to price crashes and lawsuits. Others highlight inflation risk and the company's ability to reduce dividends without a formal default. In summary, STRC's drop is attributed to BTC volatility, competition, and technical factors. While immediate default risk appears contained, the product faces challenges from market conditions and competitive dynamics.

marsbit1h ago

STRC Breaks Below $95: Why Does It Continue to Depeg? Is There Default Risk?

marsbit1h ago

AI Trading Cools, South Korean Stocks Plunge 1.8%, Spot Gold Rises 1%, Bitcoin Dives

A sell-off in AI-related stocks, triggered by Broadcom's disappointing earnings forecast, sent shockwaves through global markets. South Korea's KOSPI led Asia's decline, plunging 1.8% as the risks from concentrated chip stock gains and surging leveraged investments came to the fore. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 futures fell 0.5% following Broadcom's 14% after-hours plunge, which signaled a slower-than-expected transition to AI clients. This pullback extended Wall Street's weakness, halting the S&P 500's nine-day rally amid hawkish Fed signals and renewed Middle East tensions. South Korean authorities convened an emergency meeting, pledging "immediate measures" against market volatility and warning of record-high stock margin debt. The adjustment rippled across assets: Bitcoin fell to around $64,000, its lowest since February, while safe-haven gold rose 1% on bargain hunting. Oil prices dipped on Middle East ceasefire news. Market analysts noted the sell-off was driven by profit-taking after massive gains, particularly in chip stocks like Samsung and SK Hynix, which now dominate the KOSPI. Wall Street banks are divided on Korea's outlook, with Goldman Sachs raising its target while Citigroup and others warn of overvaluation and a potential bubble. Bridgewater's Ray Dalio noted that great technological shifts often create bubbles. Meanwhile, Fed officials' hints at potential future rate hikes added to the cautious mood ahead of key U.S. jobs data.

华尔街日报1h ago

AI Trading Cools, South Korean Stocks Plunge 1.8%, Spot Gold Rises 1%, Bitcoin Dives

华尔街日报1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

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 AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片