Why is Covenant AI Fleeing Bittensor?

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-04-10Обновлено 2026-04-10

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit19 мин. назад

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit19 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit26 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit26 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit39 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit39 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Неделя обучения по популярным токенам (2): 2026 может стать годом приложений реального времени, сектор AI продолжает оставаться в тренде

2025 год — год институциональных инвесторов, в будущем он будет доминировать в приложениях реального времени.

1.8k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.12.16Обновлено 2025.12.16

Неделя обучения по популярным токенам (2): 2026 может стать годом приложений реального времени, сектор AI продолжает оставаться в тренде

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на AI (AI) представлены ниже.

活动图片