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

Agent 赛马结束,超级工作台上位

过去一个月,腾讯、阿里、字节三家巨头不约而同地开始调整其AI战略:他们并未发布新的Agent(智能体),反而着手缩减和整合现有的众多Agent产品。腾讯将QClaw业务并入其战略级产品WorkBuddy;阿里计划将多款办公智能体整合进“千问办公”,由钉钉统一主导;字节则将其AI编程产品TRAE SOLO更名为TRAE Work,转向工作流协同。这标志着行业对Agent发展的共识正在形成:分散探索阶段结束,资源开始向统一入口集中。 此前,各大厂曾效仿早期互联网,在各个部门和场景广泛布局Agent,导致产品功能重叠、资源分散、成本高昂。随着技术壁垒因开源工具而降低,竞争核心转向算力效率与市场聚焦。当下的调整类似于PC时代的浏览器和移动时代的超级App,预示着AI时代正进入以“超级工作台”统一入口的新阶段。 这一转变背后是市场重心的深刻转移:AI的最大市场并非最初的程序员群体,而是更广阔的数十亿职场人的通用办公场景。超级工作台的目标是成为员工处理邮件、文档、数据、审批等日常工作的首要AI入口,从而掌握企业数据和系统API的调度权。 这并非要取代现有的企业软件(如ERP、CRM),而是通过引入“Skills”(标准化能力接口)让软件能力无缝接入工作台。软件的前端交互界面重要性下降,其价值将转向按能力调用和结果付费。Agent本身也从独立产品,逐渐演变为一种底层能力,最终像电力和网络协议一样,无处不在却又隐于无形。 行业正从Agent作为明星产品的第一阶段,快速迈向其作为统一工作入口的第二阶段,并终将进入其化为无形基础设施的第三阶段。

marsbit2分钟前

Agent 赛马结束,超级工作台上位

marsbit2分钟前

Michael Saylor:反对 BIP—110 的 110 个理由

Michael Saylor发表长文,系统性地阐述了反对比特币改进提案BIP 110的110个理由。他认为,BIP 110旨在通过修改共识规则来限制区块链上的非支付类数据存储(如铭文等),但其根本动机源于对特定应用的价值判断和“垃圾信息”的担忧,而非修复协议的安全或技术漏洞。Saylor强调,比特币的核心优势在于其中立性、硬共识和开放的无许可创新环境。 他反对BIP 110的主要论点包括:该提案将社会性价值判断提升为协议法律,破坏了规则的中立性;其举证不足,未能量化所谓“紧急威胁”的具体影响;提案捆绑了七项过于宽泛的技术限制,可能误伤未来的合法金融应用与升级路径;临时性的共识规则增加了系统复杂性和协调风险;可能对矿工收入、网络安全和长期创新产生不确定的负面经济影响。 Saylor指出,比特币已具备区块大小和手续费市场等中立的调节机制,节点和矿工也可以自行制定中继和打包策略,这些是比动用共识分叉更优的解决方案。他警告,BIP 110会开创一个危险的先例,即通过协议规则排除不受欢迎的用途,这可能导致未来更多的治理冲突,并扼杀尚未被发现的创新。他呼吁社区应完善测量、采用更精准的资源定价机制,并等待压倒性的共识,而非仓促实施一个可能弊大于利的方案。他最终主张,比特币需要的是“中立性的守护者”,而非“救赎性的守护者”。

marsbit17分钟前

Michael Saylor:反对 BIP—110 的 110 个理由

marsbit17分钟前

United Stables 市值突破 10 亿美元,Chainlink 数据喂价保障 U 代币抵押资产

United Stables发行的稳定币U市值已突破10亿美元,其关键在于采用了Chainlink数据预言机网络来提供抵押品定价和数据基础设施。 这一里程碑事件突显了在稳定币领域,可靠的数据基础设施已非可选,而是必需品。稳定币的价值依赖于用户对其抵押品、定价和赎回机制的信任,若相关数据薄弱或不透明,将阻碍其在DeFi中的整合与应用。Chainlink通过提供外部数据源,为U稳定币生态系统支持自动化的抵押品审计和定价。 需要明确的是,Chainlink在此扮演的是基础设施角色,它本身并不直接赋予稳定币价值,而是通过提供可靠的数据层,使其他系统能更安全地与稳定币交互。U市值的增长也表明,尽管稳定币市场仍由巨头主导,但新的发行方正在凭借强大的基础设施支持找到发展空间。 对于LINK持有者而言,这一集成案例巩固了Chainlink在稳定币关键基础设施(如抵押品验证)领域的战略地位,增强了其网络效应和机构相关性。然而,单一稳定币的增长并不能直接等同于LINK代币的费用增长或价格驱动,其影响更多是间接和战略层面的。核心在于,稳定币正变得越来越重要、受监管且依赖基础设施,而Chainlink正将自己定位为该环境中的关键服务提供商。

bitcoinist1小时前

United Stables 市值突破 10 亿美元,Chainlink 数据喂价保障 U 代币抵押资产

bitcoinist1小时前

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。

346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。

2.2k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