@OpenGradient The issue did not appear when the model failed.
It appeared when the model recovered.
Outputs returned to normal. Latency stabilized. Most users moved on. But a few inference records still pointed to the newer release. Some agents had already adapted their behavior during the problematic period. A payment had settled while the wrong version was live.
The model came back.
Confidence did not.
That made me think about rollback differently inside OpenGradient.
Rolling back weights is probably the easiest part. The difficult part is preserving the history around the mistake.
Which model version actually served a request?
Which Blob ID produced the output?
Which proof path verified the inference?
Which agents changed their behavior during the faulty release?
Which payments settled while the newer version was active?
If the network simply restores the older model and hides the failed release, the technical problem disappears, but the trust problem remains.
The failed version still matters.
The audit trail matters.
The settlement history matters.
A decentralized AI network is not only responsible for serving the correct model. It also has to preserve the record of incorrect ones.
That is why rollback in OpenGradient feels different from traditional software updates. The goal is not just to return to a working state. The goal is to make the path backward completely visible.
Because in decentralized AI, an older model becoming active again is not really the question.
The real question is:
Can the network prove exactly what happened while it was gone?
If agents, proofs, payments, and routing all continue moving during a bad release, then rollback becomes less about code and more about trust.
Going back is easy.
Leaving a trail clear enough to trust is the difficult part.
#opg #DeAI #OpenGradient $OPG Question for the community:
If a model rollback happens, what should matter most to users: faster recovery, complete audit history, or proof of exactly which version generated each inference?