So who is running Graphene OS now if Daniel Micay Stepped down?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Daniel Micay originally controlled GrapheneOS and the company set up to sponsor it was explicitly agreed to leave the project independently owned and controlled by Micay [1]. Current reporting and developer communications show GrapheneOS operating as an active open-source project with a team producing security preview releases, Pixel 10 experimental builds and community outreach; exact names of current individual leaders beyond references to “the GrapheneOS team,” a community manager called MetropleX, and public channels are what available sources provide [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What changed: Micay’s historical role and the project’s structure
Daniel Micay was the explicit owner and controller of GrapheneOS when the supporting company was created, and GrapheneOS’s own history page states the project was intended to remain independently owned and controlled by Micay [1]. That history also recounts a split from a former sponsor and accuses that sponsor of a “campaign of misinformation and harassment,” which the project says prompted rebranding and a continued path as an independent open-source project [1]. Available sources do not detail a formal corporate change of control after Micay stepped down; the GrapheneOS history emphasizes the project’s independence without naming current corporate officers [1].
2. Who’s visibly running development now: “the GrapheneOS team” and public community managers
Recent public outputs are attributed to a team rather than a single leader. GrapheneOS is publishing monthly security preview releases and experimental Pixel 10 builds, and external coverage credits the project itself and named community figures such as a community manager who goes by MetropleX in interviews [3] [2] [5]. GrapheneOS also posts official announcements on its Mastodon account and in its discussion forum, indicating an organizational structure of maintainers and communicators rather than a single, named director in the sources provided [4] [6].
3. Evidence of active engineering and release management
Multiple outlets report that GrapheneOS is delivering security preview patches and working toward full Pixel 10 support: the team has been publishing security preview releases that backport December 2025 patches and has released experimental builds for the Pixel 10 series [3] [2]. PiunikaWeb and GrapheneOS forum posts outline a roadmap prioritizing Android 16 QPR1 security updates before shifting resources to Pixel 10 integration, which suggests an organized development and release process under a multi-person team [7] [8].
4. Signals from community channels and interviews
GrapheneOS’s Mastodon account explicitly communicates strategy — for example, warning that future Pixel devices may not meet GrapheneOS requirements and that talks with OEMs are ongoing [4]. AndroidPolice cites an interview with GrapheneOS’s community manager MetropleX about OEM talks and projected timelines for device launches, indicating that the project has spokespeople and public-facing roles even if a single owner is no longer fronting it [5].
5. What sources do not say — transparency gaps and limits of reporting
Available sources do not provide a clear, named list of current project leaders, trustees, or corporate officers after Micay’s stepping down; they refer instead to “the GrapheneOS team,” community managers, and forum participants [6] [4]. There is no sourced, detailed governance document or press release in the provided material that lays out who legally controls the project now or the internal decision-making process beyond public-facing communications (not found in current reporting).
6. Competing interpretations and potential agendas
The GrapheneOS history frames the split with the former sponsor as a struggle against harassment and misinformation, which signals an implicit agenda to present the project as ethically and operationally independent [1]. Independent tech coverage emphasizes engineering achievements — security preview patches and experimental device support — which frames the project as technically competent and mission-driven [3] [2]. Community forum threads requesting clarity on leadership suggest some users want more transparency about governance, which may reflect tension between volunteer-run open-source norms and expectations for corporate-style accountability [6].
7. Bottom line for readers
Operational control today appears distributed across a public-facing GrapheneOS team that is actively shipping security previews and device builds while engaging the community through Mastodon and forums [3] [2] [4]. If you need a definitive, legally verifiable list of current owners or officers, available sources do not provide that detail and you should request an official governance statement from GrapheneOS or consult their project repositories and organizational filings for documentation not included in the materials cited here (not found in current reporting).