New Node Provider Proposals

[louisevelayo]

Hi ICP Community ,

Some of you may already know me from my previous posts in this thread, other threads or from meeting me at the NP ICP Lab in May.

I am happy to say that I’m finally making a post in this thread for its intended purpose - I’m announcing my intention to become a Node Provider!

I know the IC is currently at its target topology, but I want to start on whatever steps I can in the meantime.

This proposal will also serve as a test for a new UI I built for node provider proposals, which is a minor extension to @peterparker’s awesome project: proposals.network .

When the topology allows for more nodes to onboard onto the network, I’m keen on setting up nodes in Thailand, the Philippines, or New Zealand, as these areas currently have few or no nodes planned.

I’ll update this thread when the proposal is up for voting, probably later this week.

Thank you all!

Kind regards,
Louise

[peterparker]

I’ve been waiting for that message for quite some time.

Awesome, Louise!

P.S. Ping me if there is anything to adjust quickly in order to submit your proposal. Thanks a lot again for your contributions!

[louisevelayo]

Hi all,

I just submitted my proposal to register as a Node Provider using proposals.network.

The proposal (proposal #130774) is now live for voting, and I kindly ask for your support to vote to adopt .

If you have any questions of concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me.

Kind regards,
Louise

P.S. If you’re thinking about registering as a Node Provider too, try using proposals.network by @peterparker. You can also submit motion proposals through there too!

[methistos]

Dear community,

We would like to adopt our Proposal: #131001 to enable rewards for 2 purchased nodes dated last year invoice. We have established in rg1 datacenter prior to topology has been reached. We had approved 10 node allowance for now we will keep operating 5 nodes in this datacenter, until new topology emerges. We hope you can adopt this proposal, thank you all.
Rokas Ambrazaitis
MB Patrankos šūvis team

[Anton]

Hello,

My name is Anton Verigin, and I am representing AiNodes. We provide reliable nodes and efficient staking services for enterprises and Web3 users.

We are interested in proposing our services as a node provider for ICP.

Given that our business model is unique and offers a distinct approach, we would appreciate the opportunity to have a preliminary discussion with a representative from the ICP team.

This discussion will allow us to better understand the project’s current needs and evaluate the applicability of our business model to the Internet Computer before we present our proposal to the community.

Could we schedule a call to discuss this in detail?

Best regards,
Anton Verigin, BDM, AiNodes.

[Anton]

Hello @SvenF !

Can we discuss the proposal before publishing it? The main idea is to provide significant marketing support from our side along with setting up a node in exchange for delegating tokens to our node.

Thanks.

[NoviSystems]

Hi all,

I have two active proposals that are part of relocating an existing node from one DC (ny2) to another DC (fm1) that we already have nodes in. Some background information is available in this forum post.

Part of the relocation process means removing the old node and registering a new one under the new DC with a new node ID. Therefore, I’ve submitted proposal 131048 to remove rewarding the old, inactive node. I have also submitted proposal 131011 to begin rewarding the new node. These two proposals will correct the NNS reward schedule to accurately reflect our present situation.

I would appreciate your support in getting these two proposals passed. If you have any questions about either, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Thanks,

Cody

NoviSytems, LLC

[timk11]

A question about proposals 131400-131408 (subnet management). These mention that Data Centre mu1 (q.beyond in Munich) is to be decommissioned. Is there any further information that can be provided about the decommissioning, as so far I haven’t been able to find anything further within the Forum or elsewhere online?

Thanks.

@wpb @ZackDS @Luka @SvenF @DRE-Team

[lyjmry]

Hi, I want to discuss how to add hardware devices for GPU-dedicated subnets, because AI+Metaverse consumes GPUs very much. If you want to realize the full-chain operation of related applications, GPU subnets are indispensable.

[lyjmry]

My idea is to use NPU+GPU

[SvenF]

@timk11, DFINITY was contacted directly by the node provider (Staking Facilities) informing they prepare to decommission their nodes in the Munich data center as a business decision. There is not have any further information and the proposals are simply maintenance proposals to move the nodes that are active in a subnet out of the subnet and replace these with node machines from other node providers, in preparation of this decommissioning. There are some proposals remaining to be voted on (131411, 131413, 131414, 131417 and 131422 to 29) as not all proposals could be submitted at the same time.

[timk11]

Thanks Sven! That’s much appreciated and makes it all quite clear now.

[wpb]

Hey @SvenF now that the community is being invited to apply for grants to review the Participant Management and Node Admin proposal topics, how will information like this be made public so it can be taken into consideration during reviews? Do you consider this information relevant? I guess ideally it would have been posted publicly by the node provider. I’m curious about your thoughts since the CodeGov team and others are now trying to gear up to perform these review properly.

[SvenF]

Agree @wpb I think it is relevant information, in the future this needs to be communicated by the node provider on the forum, so that the community is able to review these proposals.

[timk11]

Hi Sven,

In relation to proposal 131704, which proposes to replace a node in subnet lhg73 in order to improve subnet decentralisation, are you (or anyone else at Dfinity) able to give a bit a more detail as to how removing this node will achieve this?

I ran the decentralization tool but there’s a great deal of information to sift through in the output, which is probably beyond the time that most proposal voters would be able to devote to this task. In the csv output I can see that there are 5 node machines in Estonia, 3 of which are assigned to a subnet (3 different ones) but I’m not sure if these are the details being considered or how this fits in with or goes against the target topology.

Also the same query for proposal 131705.

I’ve posted comments here and here in the CodeGov OpenChat channel for the subnet management topic.

[Lorimer]

Great points @timk11! I share you concerns I think it’s clear that this proposal reduces subnet decentralisation, both in terms of localised geographic disaster resilience, and collusion resistance (due to a reduction in overarching juristiction diversity - EU). I’ve rendered a map to illustrate this.

[C12]

Dear Community,

I have recently onboarded 4 new Gen 2 nodes in es1 data center in Barcelona.

I was granted allowances for these nodes last fall from the results of the Node Topology Optimizer. The results of the candidate node machine validation and exact configuration run is available on the C12 Wiki with SHA256 hash fc8e3fdfd94f7a5c0a9a884fe949f44e206421fa47ac2844c69ba9c5658d57d2.

Additionally, here is Proposal 126733 from last December where I proposed to add these 4 nodes in the es1 data center.

I have now submitted a new proposal to set the rewards for these four nodes. Proposal 131714 sets the rewards for the following nodes:

     * uao44-6xaz7-xmjyv-wxzqn-fawuf-hpz34-d7ea4-2ft3d-znzye-k246e-cqe
     * pqcqa-fs3ly-y7v77-4faa5-jzuay-5i737-t3olr-w5o4y-7gkog-zqan3-7qe
     * pekym-jis5l-i3ucx-gujvl-ncj7j-7xk7k-uwwkn-qshzy-z765w-rjwdn-aqe
     * rq2bj-ek3yy-mjj6s-zewtq-zzke4-u4zix-tz2xd-xigpz-s5hih-4wpmt-iqe

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you for your support. Your votes would be greatly appreciated!

Best regards,
Marc Johnson

[SvenF]

Hi @timk11 thanks. To clarify, decentralization coefficients are currently calculated by country, node provider, data center, and data center provider. So swapping a node machine from, for example, Colombia to Germany does not improve or reduce the decentralization coefficients if there is not already a node machine in the subnet in Germany. Most of the time, the node replacement proposals are for two reasons:

• a node is degraded or dead, so it is replaced by another node from another (or the same) node provider, allowing the node provider to redeploy the node.
• a node is removed in order to allow regular maintenance.

I noticed as well that both proposal 131704 and proposal 131705, are replacing a node that is currently downgraded or dead. The other node in 131704 (in Estonia) and in 131705 (in Florida) currently show healthy. The reasons for swapping a second node machine is that in the currently implementation of the DRE tooling, node machines are always swapped in a pair of 2 nodes.

The reason for this is that with a subnet of 13 node machines, it is always safe to replace 2 nodes without compromising the subnet, while at the same time in almost all cases - when there is only one unhealthy node to replace - a second node can be found that improves the decentralization. But in the case of 131704 and 131705, it could not found a further optimization; in that particular situation, the second node to replaced is chosen at random from available nodes, that at least does not decentralization coefficients. In the case of 131704 and 131705 these were nodes in Switzerland and Germany, which at least did not make decentralization coefficients worse. In the case of 131703 as another example, the second node chosen was the same as the node that was already in the subnet, so no second node machine was swapped.

Agree that this is not perfect, and the tooling could be further improved, amongst others to take into account geographical areas such as “EU”. This might be a topic that needs to be discussed further, and whether additional decentralization coefficients needs to be added upon and implemented.

Furthermore, the summary text in the proposal that is automatically generated and says “improving decentralization”, should actually be “optimizing decentralization”, because sometimes no improvement can be made.

As for the two proposals, these were rejected by the Foundation, but for another reason: the nodes added nodes from a data center in Munich (MU1) that is being decomissioned, as discussed above.

Thanks again for reviewing of these proposals, it will definitely help improving the quality of the proposals and the decentralization of review of these proposals. At the same time we will be working on improving the auditability of each of these proposals.

[timk11]

Thanks @SvenF . That’s very helpful indeed, and I’ve voted to reject these as well. Would it be feasible to add some of this explanation (the first part) to proposals of this type?

[SvenF]

Hi @timk11 the summary text is automatically generated, but I will talk with the DRE team on how that can be improved. We definitely need a better description in there.