Weird. Draggin corp did submit a proposal to become a node provider.
Ntn cicp whole tokenomics are based on node rewards.
New node rules are in place to expose these potential clusters and all of the sudden these two extremely real issues don’t matter.
I am guessing you prefer retroactive action and to ignore the new onboarding rules set in place due to previous node clusters.
Bumping this here to cut through the spam
Only Draggincorp is registered as a node provider and has 0 nodes.
Ntn is a seperate entity and we are discussing with the foundation the beat way for a dao controlled node provider to exist.
@Mico find a real issue to complain about or stop flooding forums with your nonsense plz. Real issues that affect the existing topology need to be addressed!
We all know you are paid by WTN (Leo, Enzo, David, Wenzel) to post. The grants were very public. Just accept that nICP and cICP can coexist and move on.
Draggincorp is not an anonymous DAO. It is a node provider that currently has 0 nodes.
There is another topic regarding NTNs cICP. I am not involved with NTN, but I do believe it is an excellent concept and am supporting their initiative by having discussions with the foundation regarding how DAO ownership can work whilst having clear KYC on the people who have CONTROL of the nodes.
That is the point you and @Mico cannot grasp. KYC and UBO rules are in place to ensure there is transparency for who has CONTROL of the nodes.
For example:
David Fisher is cofounder of 9 Yards Capital.
9 Yards Capital node provider was renamed to Rivonia
9 Yards Capital invested in Parafi Capital. When VCs invest they take ownership % so it is safe to say 9 Yards Capital owns a portion of Parafi Capital.
Parafi Technologies is owned by Parafi Capital. Therefore 9 Yards Capital owns part of Parafi Technologies.
Rivonia is “selling” their nodes to Parafi Technologies, therefore Parafi and Rivonia need to be considered a cluster.
David Fisher funded Leo and Enzos node purchase in the silent auction.
David Fisher is a business partner named in official Swiss corporate ownership structure alongside Leo and Enzo.
Therefore Rivonia, Parafi, Blue Ant and Zarety need to be considered a cluster.
This is why it is important to know who has CONTROL.
If you pay the bills… you have influence over the nodes.
@alexu and @bjoernek get it. The foundation get it. These attempts to disguise the controller will not succeed going forward. This was a major part of the “Drain the Swamp” initiative. I note none of those named in this post are participating in the KYC pilot program…
ICP needs less people like @dfisher who are purely focused on extracting max node rewards for personal gain. Why don’t you stop dumping your rewards and start using that nice fat unstaked wallet you think nobody knows about to invest in the eco?
@Mico you’re just creating noise. The implementation for DAO financed nodes hasn’t even been fleshed out yet. But the potential clustering implications have already been brought up.
Once there’s an actual proposal for how to go about it, then there’ll be something more to discuss.
So there should be no reason to worry if draggin corp owning a stake in another node providers dao creates a cluster?
Why does it seem retroactive action is what you want all of the sudden?
Is this not similar to the people running draggin corp owning a large share of ntn?
Gosh you are like a very boring broken record…
No because
we have no active nodes and are not a risk to the ecosystem by having associated nodes on the same subnet (something the foundation has fixed btw, they have some awesome tools coming out very shortly!)
at present there is no way for a DAO to have ownership of a node. By constantly complaining about the theoretical what ifs of something that hasnt happened yet, you really are coming across like Chicken Little…
So it will come down to a retroactive due diligence after you and ntn spin up nodes?
That seems very backwards as it wasn’t disclosed in your introduction for becoming a node provider.
nICP owns zero nodes nor does WTN dao. That seems to be a narrative you want to push but only while avoiding the fact that the devs are node providers but those nodes have nothing to do with nicp or wtn. While the nodes associated with cicp will be controlled by the dao where draggin corp has a 35% share of that business.
Lets not act like there is not a significant ownership between these two entities.
There is a clear conflict here that is trying to be hidden. It would be nice if we could push the people who got everyone to follow new rules to follow these rules themselves. This should not be a one way street.
@Thyassa I think we could agree this investment should be disclosed by you and ntn in the node provider introduction to help push everyone to show a higher level of transparency. Owning 35% of the dao trying to become node providers while also becoming a node provider yourself is a clear cluster in the works.
No.
NTN had not developed nICP when we applied and is still not a node provider.
We have already spoken to Alexu, Maria, Sam and both Bjoern’s about our desire to find a solution so that a DAO can be a node provider. When we are less busy, we will sit down and figure out a way to make this work. Not just for NTN, but for any DAO that may wish to be a node provider. This is a feature that needs to be applicable to everyone and could be a real plus for the ecosystem.
You should have used the appropriate thread as pointed out before, the topic here is the Draggincorp named Neuron, not node provider. This is the last time I will respond to any node provider questions or theoretical nonsense about what you imagine will happen.
Gothca, so we will wait for ntn to apply to become a node provider then we will discuss the potential of a node cluster between the two.
