Covenant AI, a developer operating on Bittensor’s subnet ecosystem, announced on Friday that it is leaving the decentralized AI network, accusing governance of not being meaningfully distributed and questioning whether the project can sustain its decentralization claims. In a post on X, Covenant AI founder Sam Dare said the team could no longer build on or raise for Bittensor because governance wasn’t truly distributed. “It is decentralization theatre,” Dare wrote, alleging that Jacob Steeves—known as Const—maintains effective control over the governance triad, resists meaningful transfers of authority, and deploys changes unilaterally without process or consensus.

The dispute centers on the core selling point of Bittensor: true decentralization. Covenant AI contends that Steeves wields outsized influence over governance and network operations, an accusation Steeves has denied. Bittensor describes its governance as a transitional framework, featuring a “Triumvirate” of Opentensor Foundation employees alongside a senate, rather than a fully open, fully distributed model. The company’s documentation frames this as a staged approach rather than a completed, decentralized system.

Key takeaways

• Covenant AI is exiting Bittensor, publicly challenging the project’s claim of decentralization and accusing governance of concentrated power under a Triumvirate-led structure.
• The core accusation centers on control over governance and network operations, with Covenant AI alleging unilateral decision-making and resistance to meaningful authority transfers.
• In response, Bittensor founder Jacob Steeves denies suspending subnet operations or granting special privileges, and says dissenting actions are either mischaracterized or misinterpreted—he also contends that certain token-related moves were ordinary market activity visible on-chain.
• The dispute has coincided with a material move in TAO’s price and trading volume, reflecting broader investor attention as the governance rift unfolds.

Governance under the lens: what changed and what stayed the same

The heart of Covenant AI’s claim is that the governance design of Bittensor—ostensibly built to be open and composite—operates in practice as a closed system. Covenant AI argues that the Triumvirate, comprising key Opentensor Foundation figures, plus a senate, retains root permissions and can steer network modifications without broad consensus. Dare framed the arrangement as incompatible with the decentralization narrative that attracted builders and financiers to the project, suggesting that the structure undermines the very premise of distributed governance.

Steeves, for his part, pushes back on the description of centralized control. In his public responses, he argued that he does not wield privileges beyond those of ordinary TAO token holders and that he cannot suspend subnet emissions. He also contends that any large token movements he has executed were disclosed through on-chain activity and thus transparent to the community. In a Friday X post, Steeves responded to Covenant AI’s claims by stating he had liquidated some of his “alpha holdings” on subnets that were not actively running or were on burn-heavy code, asserting that such actions alter emissions in a manner consistent with typical market dynamics on Bittensor.

Nevertheless, Covenant AI asserts that governance friction has tangible effects on project momentum. Emissions controls and moderation rights are among the specific levers cited as evidence of centralized influence, with Covenant AI describing moves as attempts to pressure or stifle the subnet’s development trajectory. Steeves counters by noting that moderation permissions were temporarily restricted and later restored, and he emphasizes that changes in on-chain token economics would be visible to observers. He also argues that his actions fall within the rights of token holders and do not amount to a covert governance coup.

Market signals and on-chain behavior amid the dispute

The governance dispute has spilled into market sentiment around TAO, Bittensor’s native token. TAO’s price had been under pressure, slipping roughly 18% over the preceding 24 hours as of Friday morning in market data cited by Cointelegraph. The selling momentum intensified in the day leading up to Covenant AI’s departure announcement, with on-chain sell volume hitting a level not seen since December 2024. Analysts framed the price and flow dynamics as a potential reflection of investors adjusting exposure to a project undergoing a governance upheaval.

External observers echoed the sense that the departure could be more than a PR dispute. One crypto analyst noted on X that the timing and scale of Covenant AI’s exit appeared deliberate, describing it as a calculated move rather than a coincidence. While market dynamics can be noisy, the episode underscores how governance tensions in decentralized projects can translate into tangible liquidity and price reactions, particularly when a builder with an active subnet exits.

Cointelegraph sought comment from Covenant AI and Bittensor for responses to the evolving narrative but did not receive official remarks by publication time. The broader market context remains relevant: governance design that emphasizes decentralization is increasingly scrutinized as multiple teams seek to attract talent and funding without compromising core distributed principles. The exchange between Covenant AI and Steeves—along with on-chain activity tied to token emissions and governance permissions—provides a live case study in how decentralization ambitions interact with practical governance controls.

Broader implications for decentralization in practice

Industry observers note that the Covenant AI episode highlights a broader, ongoing debate about the practical meaning of decentralization in long-running blockchain and Web3 projects. David and Daniil Liberman, co-founders of the Gonka protocol, described a tension that will resonate with builders across ecosystems: if a project’s infrastructure can be used against it because control rests with a concentrated subset of actors, does the model remain genuinely decentralized? Their assessment emphasizes the need for governance that can withstand complex, real-world pressures without becoming opaque or inert in the face of conflicts between contributors and governance stewards.

The debate also harks back to earlier public moments in Bittensor’s story. For instance, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly celebrated Covenant AI’s milestone in training a decentralized large language model on Bittensor Subnet 3, calling it a remarkable technical achievement. That historic spotlight contrasted with the current governance friction, illustrating the dual aspects of decentralization narratives: the technical frontier that attracts builders, and the governance framework that must sustain it without central choke points.

As the community digests the tensions, readers should watch for how Bittensor’s governance documents evolve and whether any reforms are pursued to broaden participation or formalize oversight. The resolution, or lack thereof, will influence not only Covenant AI’s future on the network but also how other builders evaluate the feasibility of heavily multi-party, permissioned decentralization models in practice. Observers will be mindful of potential new on-chain disclosures, governance proposals, or changes to subnet permissions that could redefine participation rules for developers and token holders alike.

In this moment, the core question remains: can a decentralized AI network reconcile rapid innovation with a governance framework that remains genuinely open to diverse contributors, or will episodes like Covenant AI’s departure redefine decentralization as a continuous negotiation between ambitious builders and centralized control points?

What to watch next: keep an eye on any updates to Bittensor’s governance structure, changes in subnet emission policies, and new participation rules for subnets. The outcome will influence how other multi-stakeholder networks balance openness with accountability, and it will shape investor sentiment around projects that promise decentralization as a core value proposition.