WONG IN-HOON'S FINE TAO TEAM HAS BROKEN UP WITH THE FOUNDER

Original Odaily Daily@OdailyChinaI'm not sure

By Azuma@azuma ethI'm not sure

Remember the story of Yin Weida, CEO Wong Jin-hoon, Bittensor

On March 20th, Huang was asked when attending the All-In podcast of Chamath Palihapitiya, “Whether or not to go to the central AI system/calculator network”。Palihapitiya gave the example of Bittensor (some suspects with personal goods), indicating that a network team on Bittensor had successfully trained a Llama model of 4 billion parameters (actually 72 billion parameters) and that the process had been coordinated by distributed computing, and that the evaluation given by Huang In-hoon was “a remarkable technical achievement”。

As a result of this interest, TAO experienced a sudden run-off last month, with a peak of $370, and Bittensor was considered by the encrypted money industry as "the hope of the whole village."。

And just half a month later, things went down with a sudden statement -- by the morning of April 10, TAO had fallen into a $290, three days in a row, and Bittensor had fallen into perhaps the biggest vortex of public opinion since its inception。

It's a fine old one. It's actually a subnet team called Covenant AI

We need to understand Bittensor's subnet structure before we can explain the story。

Bittensor is a decentralized machine learning network centred on token incentives, and Bittensor will distribute the TAO awards by using subnet mechanisms to engage different teams in the construction of various AI task markets with the participation of miners and certifyers in computing and evaluating them。

As mentioned earlier in Palihapitiya, the “a subnet team” is actually known as Covent AI (formerly Templar), while the old yellow dot model is known as Covent-72B, a model with 72 billion parameters, trained by more than 70 independent contributors in general hardware in collaboration without permission, and the largest centralized large model pre-training project in history。

In a simple summary, Bittensor, in essence, can be understood as the “application layer builder” of a project such as Covent AI, which provides incentives, governance and network rules, rather than directly developing a specific AI model or application; and Covenant AI, which has a role closer to providing specific AI tasks and model capabilities on the bottom network。

Sudden statement by Covenant AI

April 10th morningCovenant AI founder, Sam DareStatement(Taking into account the continuous decline of TAO, actual contradictions or longer fermentation), it is indicated that Covenant AI has decided to withdraw from the Bittensor network because of the departure of Bittensor and his founder, Jacob Steeves (webname Const)。

In its statement, Covenant AI stated that the core conviction of the team was that “the training of the front-line AI model should not be controlled by any single entity”, but that when a single actor could suspend the discharge of a subnet, overthrow the right of the subnet owner to manage its own community space, publicly abandon projects without a process, and force others to obey through token sales as a coercive mechanism, this would not be decentrization, but rather centralized control in the cloak of decentrization。

Covenant AI continues to complain that every participant in the Bittensor ecology - miners, certifyers and investors - should understand that this power exists and has been exercised by Const. This power is exercised not for the sake of network health, but in order to regain control over a team that has become “too independent” and difficult to manage, a sub-network owner who can build self-contained communities, make independent decisions and operate without permission, as it threatens his authority throughout the ecology. In particular, Bittensor, while using the so-called “three-manage” structure, i.e., multiple signatures upgraded by a three-person management network and claiming to the community that this is distributed governance, is not the case。Const is still in control of absolute power and resists any real transfer of power -- the ecological power of Bittensor never leaves a man's hand。

In the past few weeks, Covenant AI also mentioned that Const has undertaken a series of actions that conflicted with the principles proclaimed by Bittensor in the operation of the teamThis includes suspending the release of the Covenant AI subnet, removing the team ' s authority to manage its own community channels, unilaterally abandoning the subnet infrastructure, and exerting economic pressure through large-scale public currency sales at times of operational conflict。

So Covenant AI decided to quit the Bittensor network. The team concluded by saying that de-centre, non-licensed AI training is not the only function of Bittensor, but rather a technical capability that the Covenant AI team wants to continue to advanceThe research, team, model and vision of Covent AI will continue and very exciting projects are under way and will soon be made available to the public。

It's open, Bittensor

Thanks to the success of the Covent-72B (SubNet-3), together with the Covent AI team, which operates the Basilica (SubNet-39, located as an AI model assessment/adjection-related subnet) and Grail (Sub-81, positioned as a more complex task driver, AI subnet), the team has a significant role to play in Bittensor’s ecology — perhaps because of the community, resources, voice and power of the Covent AI, which has created a conflict with Const。

With the ambivalence of both sides, Bittensor's ecology quickly descended into a vortex of public opinion。

At the product level, with the departure of Covent AI, communities began to question the future development and value of the Bittensor network。As one of the most technical narratives and practical results in the Bittensor ecology today, the withdrawal of Covenant AI means that this chain of competence is being directly removed, and that Bittensor faces uncertainty about technological progress and ecological activity in the direction of AI training, and the market is therefore cautious about its long-term value。

The reputational impact, the decentrization of Bittensor, is facing the greatest challenge since its inception。The claim of Covenant AI refers directly to the bittensor's central narrative, “Decentralized AI Network”. For Bittensor, who relies on de-centre narratives to attract developers and calculators, the impact of such governance disputes is far greater than short-term price fluctuations and is more likely to shake the confidence of ecological participants。

At the brand level, Covenant AI, in turn, overwhelms the community's mind。Prior to this statement, there was a general impression that the market was praising Bittensor, and few people realized that Covenant AI was the real protagonist, and few even knew that the team existed. With the fermentation of events, Covenant AI became more visible, and Bittensor became the “blood loss” part of the community's image。

As of the date of the communication, the official social media of Bittensor has not spokenConst is a vague response on the personal account number: "This is going to drive Bittensor to the first real `headless running' subnets, real commoditious...thank you Covent AI for getting Bittensor decentralised."

Under the Const response, a large number of Bittensor community users (especially TAO currency holders) are urging Const to provide a more detailed response to the allegations made by Covenant AI, but Const has not yet continued to respond。

Odaily Daily will follow up on this matter on an ongoing basis。