Thank you, @Thyassa! I completely agree. The (potentially sensitive or confidential) documents required for verifying identity and node provider independence should not be stored in a publicly accessible manner. For the network, it is only essential that the results of the node provider verification, for example in the form of a certificate, are publicly available.
1 Like
How I understood the original post is that each node provider would be KYCâed on an individual basis. If then that KYC firm would also have to verify that each node provider doesnât have a link to any other node provider (and there could be 100s or 1000s in the future), wouldnât that be potentially costly and time consuming? Instead one could establish criteria of independence here on the NNS, node providers declare themselves if there is anything to declare in terms of links, and on a periodic basis one engages an outside firm that looks at the node provider ânetworkâ from a birdâs eye view to see if they can find any other links that have not been disclosed.
As I understood it:
The KYC firm would not be the validator for links. It is the validator for the ultimate beneficial owner.
That is the person who would then reveal what links they have. Note links are not âI had a coffee and a polite chat with x who happened to be in the same townâ. As @icarus explained way better than I can in the call, it is to say what possibly exposure risks there are for their nodes. Do you share the same data center, have the same sys admin, that sort of thing.
Obviously, things like âmy boss gave me money so I could buy some machinesâ should be discovered in the KYC process.
As to the penalties, most obvious would be to force a sale of their nodes at market rate to a 100% kycâed non-connected node provider. Anything else would really depend if they did something illegal or not. Fraud is still fraud whether you are a node provide or not, it isnât a get out of jail free card.
Every node provider should be welcoming this with open arms. These measures help ensure that they will continue to have an income stream (and hopefully they also care about the growth and strength of the IC network too!)
The cost of a KYC check should be easily manageable by someone who is proposing to be a node provider given the cost per machine and maintenance costs involved.
The thing to remember is that nobody is forcing anyone to be a node provider. If any of the current ones no longer feel like it is in their interests to continue, more people will step up.
As the IC scales, this becomes less and less of an issue as it will become increasingly difficult for anyone entity to make an impact. We (the collective we, the community) have to protect the IC while she grows.
As for how this will be enforced, there is one tool, that has already been forked. More will come. We have people like @EnzoPlayer0ne and @Lorimer right now but eventually we will have 100 of each of them and many many other people (maybe a few Chloe OâBriens). The goal here is not to victimise people, but to ensure that it is not profitable to be a bad actor. You can go do that on some other blockchainâŠ
Anyway this isnât directed at you @snoopy as you are obviously fresh to these forums and are probably a bit shell shocked and just trying to catch up.
The IC is full of very passionate, very clever people. We will never 100% agree on everything and that is as it should be. For now, I think we can agree that more needs to be done and that the powers that be are listening and we are moving in a positive direction.
3 Likes
I have also been thinking about what @Lerak said on the call. I agree saying that you will be KYCâed every x years seems a pointless waste of money. Anyone that is doing shady shenanigans will know that they have to clean everything up 6 months or so before and it will just be a pointless exercise.
Maybe we need to think of some way to do a âsecret shopperâ concept. The formal KYC, which should not be a problem for existing NPs as if anything it sets the barrier higher for new people on boarding.
You guys are the pioneers, you should lead by example.
We are all here as we believe in the IC and want to support it as much as possible.
3 Likes
They all seem to have the same status: IC_Execution_LongRunningQueries
This is not a known error, if I had to bet, itâs probably not related to those nodes themselves, but rather some other error. One of mine also has this status, will check in Matrix channel if any advice on this.
1 Like
No point replying because Iâll just get my post flagged by the usual group.
I think the node providers are not happy about the new KYC rules! 
1 Like
I think itâs a temporary issue, I can see that all my nodes that are all in different subnets have âpassed throughâ this status and then recovered back. They ping fine, donât think there is anything wrong with the nodes themselves. Maybe Dfinity can shed some light on this later, but seems all nodes are recovering quite quickly.
1 Like
I linked this internally, multiple node providers already asked about this too. AFAIU (although I donât understand much about this part of the stack) this is not something related to the nodes, more about how messages are executed. Iâll wait for experts to say if this is something to be concerned about, but I donât expect it to be the case
1 Like
Yâall just watching our nodes more closely now 
Actually it can happen for several different reasons, everything from real hardware problems, internet routing issues, IC-OS upgrades causing intermittent problems, dashboard monitoring stack problems.
Sometimes itâs a cause local to our data centre, sometimes itâs wait for the DFINITY SRE team to identify a wider problem. Itâs what the node provider Matrix chat channels are mainly for: boring technical problem identification and resolution.
But also why the monitoring and communications are (and should be) open for anyone to see and raise questions like you have 
2 Likes
Just us NPs flicking the lights on and off, seeing if anyone is paying attention
2 Likes
The new alert IC_Execution_LongRunningQueries was added by the execution team to identify nodes that are for some reason slower processing queries. I donât have the exact details on how these nodes are flagged, and Iâve asked the execution team to look into it and comment on the forum.
1 Like
@tina23 @icarus after discussing with the execution team, weâll disable the alert until we have a better plan how to handle such flagged nodes. So everything should go back to normal in a few minutes. Thanks for proactively reaching out for more information.
4 Likes
Thank you Sasha for the quick feedback!
2 Likes
Hi all,
Many thanks for all the constructive feedback received in this thread!
As mentioned above and also discussed in the node provider working group, there is a consensus that we would need a clear policy on what defines ownership independence among node providers. To bring this topic forward, I am sharing a set of proposed questions that could be included in the node providersâ self-declaration form. As mentioned in the initial post, the information provided in the self-declaration form, including the assessment of independence, should be verified by recognized third-party services on a regular basis. All node providers, existing and new ones, would be in scope of this process.
We would greatly appreciate your input on the proposed extensions to the self-declaration form!
In parallel, as also suggested by some community members and node providers, we will consult with auditors and legal counsel regarding the question list and will share additional feedback as soon as it is available.
Ideally, by next week, we aim to submit a motion proposal to seek approval from the NNS on these suggested extensions.
Assessment of Independence (Ultimate Beneficial Ownership)
- Q1: UBO Ownership & Control
- Please list the Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs) of the node provider entity, along with their full legal names and countries of residence.
- Please include any individual who:
- Holds â„25% direct or indirect ownership; or
- Otherwise controls the entityâs decisions (e.g., via a management position such as CEO, CFO, COO, board membership, a trust arrangement, or other legal agreements).
- If no individual holds â„25%, please list the person(s) with the largest stake.
- Q2: Overlap of UBOs with Other Node Providers
- Is any UBO of this node provider also a UBO of another node provider?
- If yes, provide the legal name of the other node provider(s).
- Q3: Family Ties
- Is any UBO of this node provider directly related (i.e., spouse, parent/child, sibling) to an UBO of another node provider?
- If yes, specify the relationship and the node provider(s) in question.
- Q4: Corporate Structure
- Are there holding companies, parent companies, or subsidiary relationships that also have stakes in other node providers?
- If yes, specify the relationship and the node provider(s) in question.
- Q5: Overlap of Financing
- Public Disclosure
- Does any individual or entity providing loans or debt financing to this node provider also finance (or hold a significant stake in) any other node provider?
- If yes, name the other node provider(s) involved.
- Private Disclosure (for an auditor only)
- If the node provider uses debt financing, identify the ultimate beneficial owners behind the lending entity.
- Provide all relevant documentation concerning the debt.
- Public Disclosure
8 Likes
Is this an exhaustive list? If not, then we should clearly specify.
Is this question only applicable if the answer to the previous question (public disclosure question) is yes? I would assume so, because if someone just took a personal loan from a bank or from anyone else who is not a node provider, that wouldnât be of interest to anyone?
1 Like
Thanks for this @bjoernek!
From a first read I think this looks great. Iâll have a think if I can add anything more constructive, but mostly I just wanted to say that I like what Iâm reading. Thank you for putting this together.
The only initial thought that comes to mind is whether these questions will be posed to existing Node Providers (retrospectively)? I certainly think this should be the case, and I canât think of a good reason why it shouldnât. I suppose this goes without saying, but I thought Iâd double check 
4 Likes
Good point. And yes, I think this should be an exhaustive list and I have adjusted the wording accordingly (replacing âe.g.â by âi.e.â)
If the loan is from a bank or a non-node provider, it is still important for assigned auditors to verify the source (otherwise it would not be clear if the public answer to the previous question is correct).
Yes, agreed. I have added a sentence âAll node providers, existing and new ones, would be in scope of this process.â.
3 Likes
Thatâs great, thanks @bjoernek. Iâll hold off making related changes to my SM proposal review tooling for the moment then.
I donât think my plan above will be needed if all Node Providers can get on board with your suggested path forward.
1 Like