I think it would be really useful to clearly outline the steps that need to take place, and which ones require a proposal, what those proposals will actually do, and what order those proposals will come in.
The Proposal to Commence the Swiss Subnet with 13 Nodes proposal has now executed, but I don’t think it commenced a 13 node subnet. I don’t think I’m the only one left wondering. These things need to be clearer if you expect people to vote in an informed way.
So this subnet will always be only as decentralised as the canister that was registered when ‘commencing’ the subnet (I suspect not, but I’d appreciate more clarity)? Could you clarify what other privileged powers this canister has, other than e.g. creating canisters? Presumably there’s still a whitelist, and/or other canisters that are deployed to that subnet implicitly have the power to deploy more.
@Swiss_Subnet are there plans to decentralise control over the canister? It’s currently controlled by p45yr-pzogn-v2gx5-eepbp-lv7c3-m3xkj-y5xtg-h7flz-4dpha-7mir3-sqe
has now executed, but I don’t think it commenced a 13 node subnet
That is right, it did not. The only thing this proposal created is it added a rental request to the Subnet Rental Canister (find it here).
What happens next is that the Swiss Subnet AG will try to add new nodes in Switzerland (through ordinary NNS proposals to add nodes, see here), mentioning that approved rental request as a “justification” for adding more nodes in Switzerland and ultimately as a justification to form a new subnet (see e.g., here). The nodes will not all be owned by Swiss Subnet AG, but by different entities. Ultimately, the ICP community gets to vote on these individual proposals still, allowing for carefully vetted nodes to be added to the network only.
Finally, when the subnet has been created with the proposal, the protocol will allow only the principal specified in the rental request to install canisters etc. on this subnet.
The Swiss Subnet AG has then the privilege to create canisters etc. on this subnet, other ICP users do not. It is up to the Swiss Subnet AG to allow other users to install canisters and more at their discretion – that is the privilege they’ll get by renting this subnet.
I voted to Adopt proposal 136408 with both my NNS neuron and my WTN neuron. Why do you make up lies about how I vote instead of just asking me @borovan? You are turning into one of the most dishonest people in the ICP ecosystem with all this constant misinformation. It shouldn’t be allowed, but for some reason @Leadership won’t take the rules of the forum seriously when it comes to you @borovan. At best your messages get hidden, yet readily visible to anyone who wants to know what you have to say.
Interesting. You voted against your own interests to try and spin a narrative that wtn “shadow cabal” voted to reject this. When in reality you pushed it over the edge for rejection.
I know it must be painful to be exposed on this narrative. It’s okay to take some time to word your reasonings for rejecting the vote and or for not taking governance seriously in a dao you find to have a potential governance attack vector.
I am not sure why you raise these concerns though if you tend to not care to vote with an informed position anyways. It is probably better you set a following of people who do take this responsibility seriously and engage with other voters.
How does this nuance make your lie any better? I have no control over how others vote on these NNS or WTN proposals, so why are you claiming that I have anything to do with anyone’s vote other than my own. I have explained this to you numerous times and it is posted on our websites (synapse.vote and codegov.org). Your continual claim and insinuation otherwise is an outright lie. This example plus numerous others of similar nature makes you one of the most dishonest people in the ICP ecosystem. It’s a shame really.
