Bittensor acknowledges incomplete decentralization: full transition to the community will take one and a half years
Jacob Steeves, founder of Bittensor, publicly acknowledged: at the current stage, the project is not a fully decentralized protocol. This is a deliberate decision driven by the need for accelerated development of artificial intelligence technologies.
Managed Centralization as a Necessity
Unlike Bitcoin, which was designed from the outset as a system resistant to external control, Bittensor is in the early stages of evolution. Currently, a small group of engineers makes key decisions. This approach allows the team to quickly implement updates and fix bugs without sacrificing speed for "democratic" procedures.
Steeves clearly divided the community into three categories. For users without a technical background, detailed explanations for each update will be published. The team already works directly with developers. As for the opinions of "scammers and critics" who use the idea of decentralization to slow down updates, the founder intends to ignore them.
Decentralization of Ownership Already Exists
At the same time, Steeves emphasized: at the level of asset distribution, Bittensor is already decentralized. The project had no premine, and 128 subnet teams operate within the network. This creates a foundation for the future transition to full community governance.
Roadmap: A Year and a Half to Full Decentralization
Development plans include launching short position mechanisms to protect against manipulation and implementing rights for alpha token holders. Steeves intends to transfer network control to the community within the next year and a half, once the protocol's core mechanisms are fully ready.
Recall that Bittensor provides access to computing resources through an open global network without intermediaries. This makes the project one of the key players in the decentralized AI segment.
My analysis: Bittensor's strategy is a pragmatic compromise between development speed and the ideals of decentralization. Until the network reaches technological maturity, strict centralization of governance is justified. However, investors should closely monitor the pace of control transfer to the community: delays could undermine trust in the project.