New Node Provider Proposals

Thank you Sormarler!

Hello, everyone!

Kindly cast your vote to endorse AVRVM AG’s inaugural data center in a secure former military bunker. Let’s ensure the security of the IC with high-secure data centers nestled in the Swiss Alps.

Just updating that our be1 data center (New Node Provider Proposals - #319 by AVRVM) referring to the forum discussion (Subnet Rental & Swiss Subnet) will be part of the proposed Swiss Subnet.

Thank you.


You shouldn’t buy hardware until you successfully went through the “Validation of Candidate Node Machines” and have your Node Operator Proposal approved. There is then a wait of about 8 to 10 weeks between ordering your hardware and receiving the hardware at your DC.


Hello everyone
Hello DFINITY Team

I am introducing myself and writing to formally register as a Node Provider together with my brother as “Michael and Dominik Peterer”. We are both passionate about the Internet Computer and aim to contribute to its decentralization by providing several nodes in Nairobi, KENYA, where Dominik Peterer is resident.
We have created our wiki page and uploaded our self-declaration form, proof-of-identity documents and results from the optimization tool, which shows that 4 nodes in Kenya contribute to decentralization of the IC.
We kindly ask the moderators (@SvenF @diegop) of the Wiki to approve our Wiki page and uploads (, so that we may formally submit the proposal to the NNS. Thank you for your support.

Best regards
Michael and Dominik Peterer

Hi all,

I would like to share that with the latest pipeline and node machines live, we have now reached the IC target topology, as can be seen from the graph below and verified using the latest data from the decentralization repository. This is an important milestone, as it means that for all subnets, there are sufficient Gen2 (SEV-SNP) node machines and Gen1 node machines the reach the targeted decentralization coefficients: subnet limit of 1 for node provider, data center, and data center provider, and subnet limit 2 or 3 per country (you can find more details see node diversification part 1, node diversification part 2, proposal 125367 and proposal 125549).

It also means that adding more new node machines to the IC network will not further improve the decentralization coefficients, so as agreed by the community the Foundation will reject any new node allowance proposals and node reward proposals except for the existing node onboarding pipeline. The pipeline contains node machines that have been ordered before 1st December (with evidence on the wiki page) and node machines that have added to the decentralization (with output of the optimisation tooling shared on the wiki page). Note that the IC being a decentralized network, the community may still decide to adopt specific proposals to add node machines.

In addition, in the future the community can also decide to update the IC target topology in line with further growth of the IC network in order to increase the number of required nodes and/or further improve decentralisation targets.

Let’s continue to work together to the further growth of the IC network.


Hi all,

Following up on the above post, please note that the Foundation will reject the following proposals:

  • proposals 126754, 126755, 126756, 126757, 126758 as these do not add to the further decentralization of the IC network

  • proposal 126759 for adding a new data center does not seem to be related to the node machine onboarding pipeline or any of the existing proposals. Hence, it is suggested to resubmit this proposal with further clarification on the reason for adding this data center.

  • proposals 126760, 126761 and 126762 are for node machines ordered before the 1st December but need to have the proof included in the proposals so the community members can adopt these proposals. Hence, these proposals need to be resubmitted for voting.


Hopefully these people have not purchased their hardware yet. As that would be a waste of money.

Many many congratulations to @SvenF and the whole Dfinity team. Awesome progress for a truly decentralized blockchain + cloud.

Will eagerly wait for the AI node updates and collaborations on how the Gen3 wave might look like :slight_smile:


Wow @SvenF this seems like a big deal no? Maybe some more press / marketing around it is in order??

Congratulations :champagne:


Hello Forum,

Just updating that our be1 data center (New Node Provider Proposals - #319 by AVRVM) referring to the forum discussion (Subnet Rental & Swiss Subnet) will be part of the proposed Swiss Subnet.


Thank you @ritvick and @dfisher! It’s definitely a big milestone for the IC network, the communications team is updated on it as well.


Hi SvenF, I submitted yesterday a self-declaration and a proof of identity in order to provide a new node operator in Spain.
I´m just starting with all the process. I am getting information and prices from hardware providers and from data centers in Spain.
I plan to onboard 1 or 2 nodes in my country, Spain, as long as there are no nodes here.
As I can read in your latest writting, the number of nodes is completed.
I am excited about this proyect, so I would appreciate so much if there will be any ooption to install more nodes to give support to the ICP in the future.
Best wishes,

1 Like

hey SvenF

I got a situation here the first HK DC I registered for IC nodes are not qualified with ipv6 environment after testing for days. So now we have reached out other DCs for continuing.
To shorten the time to join in IC network, we submitted two HK DC proposals trying to testing them meantime to see which one is capable, but now I found they are both rejected.
Can you kindly instructed what should I do now?

Hi @Lisa_Crato thanks for the update. I think the two data center proposals were technically okay but it was not clear which Node Provider submitted these proposals and for what reason, as the target topology was already reached. From the proposals also the neuron-ids seemed to be new and not linked to any existing node provider. What I suggest is to resubmit the proposal, and include a short description that states why it is submitted and a link to your node provider-id. Then it will be clear for the community why they need to adopt these proposals,
best, Sven

Thanks SvenF
I also have read the new topology proposal and see we have to use the tool to validate how to participate.
I’ll use the tool first to see any change in rules and result.

hey SvenF

It is slow to download the tool from China so I am still waiting for it.
After checking the previous submitting operation, I guess there is one point I missed which led to the failure of the proposals.
When I register the second DC, if I want it to be under the same Node Provider, should I use the same
neuron-id created for NP in step 3, not created a new one for step 8?

HI @Lisa_Crato in principle, you can use any NP principal to register a DC, and you can even use any existing DC as well in your Node Operator proposal. But for transparency to the community it would be best to use the same (original) Node Provider principal. That’s why I proposed to add a short description in the proposal and share it in this thread so that it is clear for the community why this proposal is submitted.

yes SvenF
I saw these words in the updated doc.

I guess I need to use the same NP principe Neuron ID to register even a different DC and node provider.
btw, the speed of downloadin the optimization tool is quite slow from China.
is there any restriction on our region for the tool?
If I cannot get the tool, I could not provide such information as stated in the doc.

Hi @Lisa_Crato as far as the team is aware there are no geo-restrictions on our Github repository, so it could be a general geo restriction or general latency issue.

Just one note for your awareness: since the IC network has reached target topology (see New Node Provider Proposals - #322 by SvenF), there are no new node machines being onbboarded expect for those in the current node-pipeline.

Thanks SvenF!
I have read them for more details.
two quesitons here:

  1. I used optimiazaiton tool and got objectivevalue=0, does that mean no more nodes in this region?
  2. what if I have no Node Provider ID in some region but I want to check the practicability of adding node in that region? I see I have to input the node provider name to further check.