All news is verified and thoroughly reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.
- Bittensor co-founder Jacob Steeves denied being able to suspend subgrid emissions, directly challenging the central claim made by Covenant AI founder Sam Dare.
- The public dispute comes a day after Covenant AI announced it was leaving Bittensor over what it described as centralized control disguised as decentralization.
the Dispute over Pettensor’s ruling It has moved into a more direct and personal phase, with co-founder Jacob Steeves now publicly rejecting the accusations that prompted Covenant AI to go offline.
In a mail In X, Steves denied having the ability to suspend subgrid emissions, contradicting one of the most serious claims made the previous day by Covenant AI founder Sam Dare. Deere announced on Thursday that Covenant would leave Pettensor, accusing Steves of running what he called a “theatre of decentralization” while retaining effective control of network administration.
Steves refuses to claim privileged control
Dare’s original statement listed four actions it said Steves had taken against Covenant AI. This included suspending broadcasts to Covenant subnets, removing the team’s moderation abilities in community channels, unilaterally neglecting subnet infrastructure, and applying economic pressure through large, visible token sales during operational disputes.
Steves responded point by point, but his clearer response focused on emissions. “I have no power to suspend emissions,” he wrote, arguing that any changes associated with his activity would come through normal market mechanisms and not through founder privileges.
This distinction is important because the core of Dar’s criticism was not just about disagreement between construction companies. It was a question of whether Bittensor’s decentralization model worked as advertised when conflict arose.
Token sales become part of the argument
Steves admitted to selling some of his “alpha properties” on Covenant AI’s three subnets. His explanation was that the subnets were not working and were burning almost 100% code. According to him, these sales affected emissions in the same way as any purchase or sale of Bittensor.
He added that he has no special privilege beyond what regular TAO holders already enjoy.
The dispute now looks less like a single founder’s implosion and more like a direct test of the credibility of Bittensor’s management. The Covenant framed his departure as evidence that power remains concentrated. Steves answers with the opposite case, which is that the system behaved exactly as it was designed, even if the result was politically ugly.
