Why is Covenant AI Fleeing Bittensor?

marsbit发布于2026-04-10更新于2026-04-10

文章摘要

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

热门币种推荐

相关问答

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.

你可能也喜欢

资本围剿之下,去中心化是公链的唯一防线

在这篇题为《资本围剿之下,去中心化是公链的唯一防线》的文章中,哥伦比亚商学院副教授Omid Malekan阐述了他对区块链核心价值的看法。他认为,去中心化并非公链众多特性之一,而是其唯一不可替代的核心特质,是抵御资本和传统巨头收编腐化的根本防线。 作者从现实主义的“马基雅维利”视角出发,分析了企业和资本的固有本性。他指出,盈利企业必然将自身利润置于技术创新之上,指望现有巨头自愿颠覆自身利益格局是不切实际的幻想。因此,任何在去中心化程度上妥协的方案,无论是许可链、节点高度集中的公链,还是中心化的二层网络,最终都会被资本劫持和控制,丧失其最初的中立与开放精神。 文章着重警告了“内部控制权掠夺”的风险,认为这比外部攻击(如51%攻击)更为致命。他列举了Visa、Mastercard和谷歌等平台从开放走向垄断的“劣化”历程,并指出承载价值更为广泛的底层公链,面临的被蚕食风险更高。企业推广“伪去中心化”的联盟链,实质是一种拖延战术,意在延缓真正去中心化技术的普及,并为自身设置准入壁垒。 最后,作者得出结论:尽管以太坊等去中心化公链存在缺陷且运行成本高昂,但在多方博弈下,市场中的资产终将流向安全性最高、最抗审查的基础设施。因此,以太坊仍是当下对抗资本围剿、避免被传统利益集团吞并的最优现实选择。

Foresight News12分钟前

资本围剿之下,去中心化是公链的唯一防线

Foresight News12分钟前

比特币的规则由谁决定?BIP-110 引爆治理分歧

BIP-110提案旨在通过临时软分叉,在共识层限制比特币链上非货币数据(如铭文、Runes),将部分当前有效的交易变为无效,以应对区块空间占用和节点负担问题。此举引发了比特币社区关于治理权的深刻分歧。 支持者(如部分节点运营者)认为,默认的节点转发策略已因绕行工具(如直接提交API)而失效,必须将边界推至共识层。反对者则有多重理由:MicroStrategy创始人Michael Saylor列出110条理由,认为该提案门槛(55%矿工信号)过低,且可能开创危险的治理先例;Blockstream联合创始人Adam Back主张,比特币无需许可的本质意味着无人有权强加价值判断,技术共识过程本身就是防止轻率变更的“免疫系统”;此外,该提案即使激活,也可能无法完全阻止数据嵌入,且被曝存在晚升级节点的共识漏洞风险。 争论还涉及各方的权力依据:矿工内部意见分裂(如Ocean支持,F2Pool反对,Foundry交客户投票);节点运营者强调每个节点的平等验证权;Core开发者能改变默认软件行为但缺乏问责;大型持币机构(如MicroStrategy)则以市场和叙事权介入。BIP-110已演变为一场关于“谁有权决定比特币规则”的治理压力测试,暴露了社区在协议升级合法性来源(PoW算力、节点执行、技术共识等)上的根本性分歧。

链捕手40分钟前

比特币的规则由谁决定?BIP-110 引爆治理分歧

链捕手40分钟前

交易

现货

热门文章

从H2A到A2A:AI Agent经济体与Crypto新机遇

6月17日,哈佛大学独立研究员、美国AI科学院(NAAI)通讯院士、比特币基金会终身会员韩锋做客火币HTX《大咖讲堂》第三期,以《从H2A到A2A》为主题,分享了其对Agent经济、Crypto基础设施及数字社会未来发展的思考。

344人学过发布于 2026.07.01更新于 2026.07.01

从H2A到A2A:AI Agent经济体与Crypto新机遇

美股TradFi:传统金融在AI IPO浪潮下的稳健锚点

2026年,美股IPO市场重回高热度。本文梳理即将上线或受关注的热门赛道龙头,分析具备投资潜力的交易标的及其逻辑,并探讨宏观趋势与相关风险。

2.1k人学过发布于 2026.07.08更新于 2026.07.08

美股TradFi:传统金融在AI IPO浪潮下的稳健锚点

相关讨论

欢迎来到HTX社区。在这里,您可以了解最新的平台发展动态并获得专业的市场意见。以下是用户对AI(AI)币价的意见。

活动图片