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

Trending Cryptos

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

Will History Repeat Itself? Fidelity Lists Five Catalysts to End the Crypto Winter

Fidelity's new report suggests that the current crypto winter for Bitcoin may be nearing its end, identifying five potential catalysts that could drive a market turnaround based on historical patterns. First, Bitcoin's approximately four-year cycle, driven by its halving mechanism, historically marks peaks and troughs. The last bottom was in November 2022, potentially pointing to the next around November 2026, though cycle length can vary. Second, clearer regulation has often preceded past bull markets. The focus is now on the CLARITY Act, which aims to clarify US digital asset oversight between the SEC and CFTC. Its passage could unlock domestic activity currently held back by legal uncertainty. Third, Federal Reserve monetary policy plays a role. A shift to lower interest rates tends to correlate with rising crypto prices by reducing borrowing costs and boosting risk appetite, though markets may price this in well ahead of any official change. Fourth, the emergence of breakthrough applications can fuel investor interest. Current trends like real-world asset tokenization, AI-related crypto infrastructure, and stablecoins are being watched, but history shows the biggest catalysts are often unexpected. Fifth, a new wave of institutional adoption could be a trigger. While ongoing adoption in 2026 hasn't sparked a new bull run, a major unexpected move—like a significant purchase by a tech giant or adoption as a hedge in a global crisis—could create a powerful new narrative. Fidelity concludes that while the market is in a downturn, historical turning points have often resulted from a combination of such factors, and the next phase for Bitcoin may depend on which of these catalysts materializes first.

Foresight News9m ago

Will History Repeat Itself? Fidelity Lists Five Catalysts to End the Crypto Winter

Foresight News9m ago

US CFTC Launches Broad Investigation into Polymarket, Is the Prediction Market Party Coming to an End?

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is conducting a broad investigation into the prediction market platform Polymarket, focusing on its business practices including social media promotions. This follows a bipartisan letter from U.S. senators urging the CFTC to probe alleged fraudulent marketing tactics used to promote gambling-like products. The action coincides with a period of explosive growth for the prediction market sector, driven by events like the World Cup, with platforms like Kalshi and Robinhood reporting record trading volumes and revenue. The investigation signals a potential end to the sector's unregulated expansion and may lead to clearer federal oversight, particularly regarding investor protection and distinguishing prediction markets from traditional sports betting. The CFTC's move has also intensified a jurisdictional conflict with multiple U.S. states (including Kentucky and New York), which have sued platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, accusing them of operating illegal sports betting and threatening state gambling tax revenues. Furthermore, the CME Group has sued the CFTC, challenging its approval of certain prediction market products. The report also highlights the political and capital interests intertwined with the industry. Donald Trump Jr. holds advisory and investment roles in both Kalshi and Polymarket, and the Trump administration has previously emphasized federal regulatory authority over these markets. The CFTC's investigation into Polymarket is framed as a step towards formalizing the industry's regulatory landscape, moving it from a phase of "wild growth" towards a more structured future.

marsbit2h ago

US CFTC Launches Broad Investigation into Polymarket, Is the Prediction Market Party Coming to an End?

marsbit2h ago

U.S. CFTC Launches Extensive Investigation into Polymarket, Is the Prediction Market Frenzy Season Cooling Down?

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has launched a broad investigation into the prediction market platform Polymarket, focusing on its business practices including social media activities. This follows a bipartisan letter from U.S. senators urging the CFTC to probe allegations of paid influencer false marketing and fraudulent promotion of gambling-like products to American users. The investigation comes as the prediction market sector experiences explosive growth, largely driven by the World Cup. Weekly trading volumes have hit record highs, exceeding $14.4 billion, with platforms like Kalshi and Robinhood's new venture seeing significant activity. Major firms like Meta are also showing interest in the space. This regulatory scrutiny signals a potential end to the sector's "wild growth" phase. The CFTC's move also highlights an escalating jurisdictional conflict between federal regulators and state authorities. Over a dozen states, including Kentucky and New York, have sued platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, accusing them of operating illegal sports betting, which threatens state gambling tax revenues. The CFTC is countersuing to assert its exclusive federal jurisdiction over these "event contracts" as derivatives. Furthermore, the CFTC's approval of Kalshi's Bitcoin perpetual futures contract has sparked a lawsuit from traditional exchange CME, alleging regulatory overreach. The political and capital landscape is intricate, with Donald Trump Jr. holding advisory roles and investments in both Kalshi and Polymarket. This connects capital, political influence, and regulatory bodies, suggesting the current investigation may be a step toward formalizing the industry's rules rather than halting its progress.

Odaily星球日报2h ago

U.S. CFTC Launches Extensive Investigation into Polymarket, Is the Prediction Market Frenzy Season Cooling Down?

Odaily星球日报2h ago

Trading

Spot

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