All articles are carefully reviewed and evaluated by leading blockchain experts and industry experts.
- Bittensor co-founder Jacob Steeves has denied that he can stop the subnet’s air, directly contradicting claims made by AI Alliance founder Sam Dare.
- The public dispute comes just days after AI Alliance said it was pulling out of Bittensor over what it described as centralized control disguised as distribution.
The Bittensor’s authority argument has entered a more direct and personal phase, with co-founder Jacob Steeves now publicly denying what led to Covenant AI’s departure from the network.
In a post on X, Steeves denied that he had the power to stop the subnet’s air, contradicting one of the main points made the day before by AI Alliance founder Sam Dare. Dare announced Thursday that Covenant was leaving Bittensor, accusing Steeves of running what he called “decentralization theater” while retaining control over the network.
Steeves rejects claims of arbitrary authority
Dare’s original statement listed four of the alleged actions Steeves had taken against the AI Treaty. This includes stopping the air to the small groups of the Covenant, removing the limited power of the group in the community, eliminating the subnet equipment and using the financial problems through large sales, visible during the operational conflicts.
Steeves responded point by point, but his argument clearly focused on air. “I can’t hold my breath,” he wrote, arguing that any change in his career was the result of good market mechanics rather than chance.
That distinction is important because the core of Dare’s opposition was not simply a disagreement between architects. It was about whether Bittensor’s brand worked as advertised when it came to controversy.
Trading tokens becomes part of the argument
Steeves admitted that he sold his “alpha stuff” on three Covenant AI units. The explanation was that the subnets were not working and were running at almost 100% burning code. According to him, that transaction affects the air in the same way as any purchase or sale in Bittensor.
He also said that he has no special advantage over those with ordinary TAO.
The controversy is now seen less as the outburst of one founder and more as a living test of the credibility of Bittensor’s leadership. The treaty established his departure as proof that power remains stable. Steeves counters with the opposite problem, that the system did exactly what it was designed to do, even if the result was bad politics.
