CodeGov reviewers believe there should be an NNS agreed upon work process for allocating nodes to subnets. DFINITY placed these nodes in the same subnet to begin with because there are no current rules against it and it achieved higher decentralization metrics at the time. There was no information provided in the Motivation section of proposal 135839 to change it and there is a generally accepted expectation that a Motivation is required to make a change. I think we are heading in the direction of identifying clusters of node providers with known and acceptable relationships and using that information in the DRE tooling when deciding how to allocate nodes, which makes a lot of sense, but that hasn’t been formally defined or agreed to yet.
It’s misleading to say that CodeGov wants to keep Bassadone nodes (@GAbassad). What we stand for is data based decentralization metrics, well defined node provider selection and onboarding policies, community engagement in the proposal review process, collaboration with DFINITY and other reviewers in the community who are trying to make smart decisions about how to keep the network decentralized and fair, due process when suspicion is raised, and professional engagement on all aspects of Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management proposals and decisions.
This is not what we have observed from you @borovan. I don’t appreciate your style of witch hunts and claims of collusion based on extremely weak evidence. We certainly are not persuaded that Bassadone is a bad actor. His attendance at your daughters birthday party certainly doesn’t seem like justification for getting targeted by you. You antics on forum proposal threads like “Drain the Swamp”, “Remove 32 Node Providers”, and “SYBILing Nodes…” seem more like a rich man throwing a temper tantrum and putting a target on peoples back just because you can get away with it. It’s unprofessional and I believe will eventually prove to be a harm to the internet computer when people outside the forum start to realize just how much power and influence someone like you has on this ecosystem. You are an insider who knew the founder before the idea of the internet computer existed and you became one of the very first investors. This gives you a lot of power and influence that everyone in this ecosystem has to live with because you own your massive voting power. Yet your proposals and forum posts come straight from the playbook of a meme coin or NFT Discord server. How can businesses and governments take the internet computer seriously when they see you throwing your weight around like this and recognize that you literally own 7% of the NNS voting power and can influence up to 15% of total voting power in the NNS to follow your lead on proposals like 135750 that are 100% opposite of the core principals that make blockchain decentralization valuable.
There is no evidence that you have presented so far that makes me think you have proven any wrong doing by Bassadone or anyone that has a relationship with him as originally presented on proposal 135636. Perhaps there is and we’d be happy to listen and review it, but so far you haven’t presented anything substantial.
Regarding this specific proposal 135839, I’m cross posting our reviews for visibility. I think most people would agree that these are reasonable justifications for our vote to Reject.