On here when you click on Katerina Karapuz’s name, it redirects to Karel Frank’s info (the entry above). If you manually enter her name you get this page
There is a red flag in the meta data for her self declaration - edited from its original state using https://imagemagick.org
She also doesn’t have any internet presence and has only submitted an electricity bill. I’ll make a proposal, let us be judged by the decentralised gods!
Karel Eastman Honeycomb Illusion Kontrapunt Frank?
Ok so I am going to bump this up as there will be a proposal made to remove Katerina Karapuz once more and this is why I believe that it is the correct thing to do.
Reason:
Failure to adhere to correct procedure
No forum activity
No proposal to become a node provider posted on forums - New Node Provider Proposals - #380 by SvenF
Unknown background, no internet presence other than the links on the IC Wiki with her self declaration and a utility bill for an apartment in Cologne.
Have serious doubts that this person has the required expertise to become a node provider.
This person has no nodes, I vote to remove them as an NP and invite them to provide additional background and follow the correct procedure if they wish to be an NP in the future.
Their self declaration and identity document (utility bill) was uploaded to the internet computer wiki 8th Jan 2024.
Proposal to become node provider created 29/Jan/2024 at 9:32:32, Settled 1/Feb/2024
This is the proposal but it was not listed on forums at all. https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/127469
Proposal made by a neuron with 10 ICP staked that was created 29/Jan/2024 at 9:24:24 - 8 minutes before the proposal was created.
Look at voting history. Nobody knew about this proposal so no votes until just before it ended and boom 99% yes. How is community able to vote if a person should become a NP or not if they are not informed about the proposal?
Proposal link is here - https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/135860
Vote: ADOPT
Review:
I had previously voted to reject this proposal. This can be seen in my review linked here.
The main reason for rejecting that proposal was because the Node Provider did appear to have the documents (Self Declaration and Proof of Identity) and corresponding hashes on their self declaration page.
However, as @Thyassa pointed out, this Node Provider has 0 forum activity, and from the voting history on their proposal, it’s clear that the community was not aware the proposal was live for voting. Granted, this was before there were community reviewers that bring more awareness to these proposals.
Because of this, I have decided to adopt this proposal. To quote Sven’s original post that opened the “New Node Provider Proposals” forum thread, he said:
While “the way to validate” still has a lot of room for improvement, the community has to be notified so that they have the chance to preform the validation they see fit. And that was not done in this case.
Currently, a forum post isn’t a hard requirement but, I believe it is minimum that can be done to announce to the community your intent to join the network. So going forward, I will stick to this principle when voting on future proposals that add node providers to the network.
Additional Comment:
Unfortunately, I cannot seem to tag this Node Provider (I don’t think they have a forum account), but I invite them to submit another proposal so that it can go through the proper community review. If all criteria is met, I have no issues adopting that proposal.
About Aviate Labs
Aviate Labs is a team dedicated to supporting node providers since 2020. Our mission is to make high-performance infrastructure management on the Internet Computer (ICP) as seamless as possible, while adhering to the principles of decentralization.
We are known for our contributions to the ecosystem, including the go-agent and developer work packages on GitHub, as well as the Node Monitor tool, which alerts Node Providers as soon as any of their nodes go down.
In the NNS, Louise reviews and votes independently on ‘Node Admin’ and ‘Participant Management’ proposals on behalf of the Aviate Labs Neuron.
The Aviate Labs known neuron is configured to follow Louise for these topics and other trusted entities for broader proposals. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee, committed to voting on every proposal and supporting decentralization within the ICP ecosystem.
Vote: ADOPT
Review:
The forum link provided in the proposal has been closed, so I will give the review here.
About Aviate Labs
Aviate Labs is a team dedicated to supporting node providers since 2020. Our mission is to make high-performance infrastructure management on the Internet Computer (ICP) as seamless as possible, while adhering to the principles of decentralization.
We are known for our contributions to the ecosystem, including the go-agent and developer work packages on GitHub, as well as the Node Monitor tool, which alerts Node Providers as soon as any of their nodes go down.
In the NNS, Louise reviews and votes independently on ‘Node Admin’ and ‘Participant Management’ proposals on behalf of the Aviate Labs Neuron.
The Aviate Labs known neuron is configured to follow Louise for these topics and other trusted entities for broader proposals. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee, committed to voting on every proposal and supporting decentralization within the ICP ecosystem.
Vote: REJECT
Yet again I understand that this situations do seem strange but I think it’s fair that until an equal process to solve the issue of potentially inactive Node providers is devised that we refrain from making forced conclusions, specially with one being a Node Provider that complied with providing self identification on the wiki.
This Node Providers with 0 nodes aren’t harming anyone, may be potential NPs with multiple nodes and are being removed just for the sake of making some kind of message or statement.
I think we are reaching a point where this proposals are just creation friction in the community and even though they may be well intentioned, there’s more value in proposing a fair and equal process to be agreed by the community to remove NPs than to just make dozens of proposals and keep trash talking in the forum.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
DFINITY Foundation is going to ADOPT 135860 & 135864.
Thank you for your service. The admin tasks of removing entities with zero nodes from a database have now officially finished.
