Table of Contents
Bittensor co-founder Const has published a rebuttal to Yuma's recent critique of the proposed Root Reborn upgrade, arguing that many of the firm's concerns stem from misunderstandings of how the mechanism works and ending the post with a pointed jab at institutional critics.
Yuma's criticism came in the form of an extensive analysis warning that Root Reborn introduces significant moral hazard, regulatory uncertainty, and structural risks. The report quickly became one of the most influential critiques of the proposal.
Bart Hillerich
In a blog post titled "Root Reborn," Const addressed Yuma's central criticisms, disputing claims around validator incentives, custody risk, redemption mechanics, regulatory exposure, network economics, and the proposal's broader impact on the ecosystem.
— const (@const_reborn) June 19, 2026
What Is Root Reborn?
Root Reborn is a proposal that would change how root staking rewards are distributed within Bittensor.
Today, root staking rewards are automatically converted into TAO before being distributed to stakers. Under Root Reborn, validators would be able to direct rewards into subnet allocations, allowing stakers to accumulate exposure to validator-selected baskets of subnet tokens while retaining the ability to redeem back into TAO.
Bart Hillerich
Supporters argue the mechanism would reduce persistent subnet sell pressure and transform root into a more active capital allocation layer. Critics have raised concerns about validator influence, regulatory exposure, liquidity dynamics, and network complexity.
Economic Rationale
Const pushed back against Yuma's argument that the proposal introduces unnecessary complexity without sufficient benefits.
According to the proposal's author, Root Reborn gives stakers additional flexibility by allowing them to maintain traditional TAO exposure, gain exposure to subnet tokens, or choose validators with different allocation approaches.
"For holders, this change provides additional choices and the opportunity for higher yields," Const wrote.
He also challenged concerns around tax complexity. Yuma's analysis argued that exposure to baskets of subnet assets could create additional complications for stakers and institutions. Const countered that the proposal could actually simplify matters for some participants because rewards would only be realized when claimed.
"Root yield is now on-demand so holder controls when realization happens, and can thus defer. The old model realized for them constantly."
Const further argued that one of the proposal's primary objectives is being overlooked by critics: reducing the automatic sale of subnet assets and redirecting that capital back into the ecosystem.
Under the current system, subnet rewards earned through root staking are automatically sold and converted into TAO. Root Reborn would instead allow that value to remain invested across subnet markets through validator-directed allocations.
"Less automatic dumping of root TAO, recycled into the ecosystem, is net supportive of the whole network," he wrote.
Const also argued that validator-directed allocation is not a new concept within Bittensor. He pointed to existing products from providers such as Crucible, Mentat, and TrustedStake that already allow users to gain exposure to baskets of subnet assets, arguing that Root Reborn would bring similar behavior on-chain in a standardized and transparent manner.
Const Says Validators Can Already Opt Out
One of Yuma's central arguments was that validators would effectively be forced into directing capital across subnets.
Const disputed that characterization.
"A validator does not even need to opt out, as the default IS opt-out," he wrote.
According to Const, validators would retain multiple ways to remain passive, including allocating evenly across all subnets. He argued that maintaining a neutral, index-like exposure remains possible under the proposal and that expressing no opinion is itself a valid allocation strategy.
Disputing Structural Risk Claims
Const also rejected Yuma's warning that Root Reborn introduces a dangerous escrow concentration point.
"This is an egregious error," he wrote.
The escrow mechanism, Const says, is not a user-controlled account. It's a chain-owned accounting abstraction that cannot be accessed, drained, or behave as a custody honeypot.
He similarly pushed back on claims that the redemption process creates bank-run dynamics, arguing that claims are effectively equivalent to unstaking operations already performed throughout the network today.
"Claims are just an unstake operation across the basket. Do alpha holders cause bank runs on Bittensor today when they claim their yield across their holdings? No circuit breakers are required today, and an abstraction over the same system does not beget one."
Debate Over Validator Incentives
Another focus of Yuma's report was the possibility that validators could direct capital toward subnets in which they hold financial interests. Const acknowledged that such behavior is theoretically possible but argued the incentives differ significantly from the pre-dTAO era often cited by critics.
"Their weights are transparent, their teams are known, and their behavior can be publicly scrutinized," he wrote.
He further argued that any validator attempting to artificially boost a subnet's performance would ultimately need to support that price action with real capital, making the strategy costly and self-limiting rather than a free extraction mechanism.
Const also challenged comparisons to the LIBOR scandal, arguing that Root Reborn is built around transparent, competitive market incentives rather than opaque rate-setting by a small group of institutions.
Process Remains a Point of Agreement
Despite rejecting many of Yuma's criticisms, Const acknowledged one area where concerns may be valid.
"Those who worry about process are partially correct: we can always do better with messaging and public relations and rollouts."
Yuma's original report argued that major protocol changes should follow a more structured process that includes clearer roadmaps, release timelines, and opportunities for ecosystem participants to evaluate business and operational impacts before implementation.
That concern was later echoed by Safello CEO Frank Schuil, who said broader community input would be healthy even if it slows decision-making.
Bart Hillerich
Looking Ahead
The Root Reborn debate is now the center of Bittensor discussion, spilling into market conversations around TAO, which has largely retraced its post-Anthropic suspension rally.
Bart Hillerich
Wherever things go from here with the proposal, as Seby Rubino highlighted, it's important to note how healthy it is to be in an ecosystem where this type of open debate is occurring.
We're grateful to be here.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. The information provided should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any digital asset, security, or investment strategy. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with a licensed financial professional before making any investment decisions. The publisher and its contributors are not responsible for any losses that may arise from reliance on the information presented.
