I don’t see how there is a clear reduction in independence. The lender has no legal right to the nodes unless the borrower defaults and then they can only repossess the nodes after proper legal action. The lender cannot access or touch the nodes in any way (we already have requirements that they are in different data centers). The lender does not receive remuneration for the work the nodes are doing. The lender receives no benefits of node ownership.
Regardless, my main concern is to clarify how a reviewer should respond to proposals where a node provider reveals that another node provider provided a loan for them to purchase node machines. Should a reviewer reject that proposal? Are there conditions where it is acceptable?
If we discover that there are existing node providers that have taken out loans from another node provider, will their node provider status be revoked? Will that open a pandoras box of legal action seeking damages since legal agreements were established between borrow/lender under one set of rules and then the rules were changed before the original agreement expired? Will they be able to take legal action against DFINITY? Will they be able to take legal action against public reviewers who are being paid to review proposals? Has DFINITY sought a legal opinion on these kinds of details yet?
I just want to make sure we have thought through the consequences of decisions that could be made based on answers to question 5. It would be helpful if we can be more explicit regarding what those decisions should be.