#Gate广场四月发帖挑战

Are they fighting? The TAO internal conflict explosion event fully tracked

Recently, the crypto circle seems to have revived the 20-year-old trend of "fighting," with CZ and the wife-and-husband duo publicly arguing with OK Star, and today Bittensor's decentralized AI training team announced their "withdrawal from the group." Truly more exciting than the last. Let’s first review the full process of the Bittensor incident:

【Covenant AI Condemns】

On April 10th, the decentralized AI training team Covenant AI issued a public statement, officially announcing their exit from the Bittensor network, directly naming the network’s core figure Jacob Steeves (alias Const), accusing him of systemic betrayal of the decentralization promise.

Covenant AI founder Sam Dare revealed that Const recently took a series of suppressive actions against their team: suspending token emissions for their subnet, stripping their management rights over their community channels, unilaterally abandoning subnet infrastructure, and during the conflict, exerting economic pressure through large-scale, high-profile token sell-offs.

Covenant AI bluntly stated that Bittensor’s so-called "multi-signature governance" is essentially a "decentralized theater"—Const effectively controls the multi-signature, can bypass consensus at any time to implement changes unilaterally, and other participants are merely legal shields bearing the responsibility.

【Jacob Steeves Responds】

In response to Covenant AI’s recent exit from the Bittensor network, co-founder Jacob Steeves responded on Discord. He revealed that when dTAO was launched a year ago, the team originally planned to implement a community-led subnet governance mechanism—that is, subnet Alpha holders could vote via wallet to elect the hyperparameter team. But because early on they needed to give subnet owners more control, this feature was delayed. Steeves believes now is the right time to restart this discussion, suggesting the introduction of a community voting mechanism to elect the team and to restart the subnet. He emphasized that as one of the main holders, supporters, and technical contributors of Bittensor’s top three projects, he will personally participate in this mechanism, recommend suitable candidates, and continue to push the original project goals jointly established with Covenant AI founder Sam Dare. Meanwhile, Steeves bluntly stated that Sam Dare’s recent decisions are "obviously malicious and greedy."

📝 To summarize both sides’ statements, four key points can be drawn:

1. The core conflict between both sides is not about the project’s development direction or operational mechanisms, but simply about money! The co-founders’ suspension of token emissions and their large-scale token sell-offs are likely the fuse for their split.

2. The team recently sold a lot of tokens.

3. The so-called "three-person multi-signature governance" of Bittensor is a false appearance; the project’s founder can unilaterally make changes, including fund movements.

4. The project founder did not deny the accusations but only suggested replacing the current AI training team through elections. Does not denying mean implicitly accepting?

🔍 How big is the impact of this event on the token?

1. The project’s fundamentals have not suffered a devastating blow: Here, using the word "爆雷" (explosive revelation) is somewhat inappropriate; the incident is more about internal conflicts within the TAO team. The biggest recent revelation is that the co-founders’ team sold a large amount of tokens.

2. The biggest issue with the Bittensor project is that the 【three-person multi-signature governance】 has loopholes or is fake, which is a blow to investors who are optimistic about the project’s fundamentals.

3. Covenant AI currently dominates TAO’s largest subnet; their exit has a significant short-term impact but limited long-term effects.

4. In the current environment, projects that only sell tokens without doing real work are everywhere. From the current development, the incident remains within the team’s internal conflicts; the project is still actively doing some things, so there’s room for optimism.

📊 Investment advice—gradually buy the dip, watch for whether bigger "scandals" will surface

Based on current disclosures, the project itself doesn’t have major vulnerabilities besides the "multi-signature mechanism" being fake. The biggest impact of Covenant AI’s exit might be whether they will sell their tokens, which could be part of the current market selling pressure. Therefore, it’s advisable to buy some cheap chips in batches. Also, keep an eye on whether more vulnerabilities or scandals about the project will be exposed; if so, cut losses and exit promptly.