Bittensor Co-Founder Pushes Back on Covenant AI Claims as Governance Dispute Deepens

• Bittensor co-founder Jacob Steeves has denied that he can suspend subnet emissions, directly challenging a central claim made by Covenant AI founder Sam Dare.
• The public dispute comes a day after Covenant AI said it was leaving Bittensor over what it described as centralized control disguised as decentralization.

The Bittensor governance dispute has moved into a more direct and more personal phase, with co-founder Jacob Steeves now publicly rejecting the accusations that prompted Covenant AI’s exit from the network.

In a post on X, Steeves denied that he has the power to suspend subnet emissions, contradicting one of the most serious claims made a day earlier by Covenant AI founder Sam Dare. Dare had announced on Thursday that Covenant was leaving Bittensor, accusing Steeves of running what he called “decentralization theatre” while retaining effective control over the network’s governance.

Steeves rejects claim of privileged control

Dare’s original statement listed four actions he said Steeves had taken against Covenant AI. Those included suspending emissions to Covenant’s subnets, removing the team’s moderation abilities in community channels, unilaterally deprecating subnet infrastructure and applying economic pressure through large, visible token sales during operational disputes.

Steeves responded point by point, but his clearest rebuttal focused on emissions. “I do not have the ability to suspend emissions,” he wrote, arguing that any changes tied to his activity came through normal market mechanics rather than founder privilege.

That distinction matters because the core of Dare’s criticism was not just about a disagreement between builders. It was about whether Bittensor’s decentralization model functions as advertised when conflict hits.

Token sales become part of the argument

Steeves did acknowledge selling some of his “alpha holdings” on Covenant AI’s three subnets. His explanation was that the subnets were not operating and were running on near-100% burn code. According to him, those sales affected emissions in the same way any buy or sell would on Bittensor.

He added that he has no special privilege beyond what ordinary TAO holders already have.

The dispute now looks less like a single founder outburst and more like a live test of Bittensor’s governance credibility. Covenant framed its departure as proof that power remains concentrated. Steeves is answering with the opposite case, that the system behaved exactly as designed, even if the outcome was politically ugly.