Thanks for the further information and photo! Following the self-declaration link from the proposal summary still seems to lead to the same document with the same non-matching hatch. Is there anything I’ve missed?
This is the link that goes directly to the file that is updated on the Wiki page.
Hi there
I am applying as a company - DragginCorp SARL. The paperwork has been submitted to the marie (council) but it takes a while to be formalised. The law here states that a company can operate in its own name from the date the documentation is filed.
That is why you cannot find it in the company registry yet.
Proposal 136493 | Tim - CodeGov
Vote: Reject
This proposal adds Anthony_Isaakidis as a node provider.
- There is an appropriate forum introduction.
- Self-declaration and identity documents are uploaded on the IC Wiki.
- Hashes match for the identity document but not for the self-declaration document. To check this I’ve relied on the link and hash given in the proposal summary. I note that @alpha.agentic has been able to add a self-declaration document to the IC Wiki that matches the hash provided in the proposal, but unfortunately I think this would need a new proposal to be submitted with the correct link shown for this document so as to ensure that the executed proposal can serve as a source of truth for future reference.
About CodeGov
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 & Neurons’ 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 decentralisation 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.
4 Likes
Proposals 136497 & 136504 | Tim - CodeGov
Vote: Adopt
These proposals sets rewardable_nodes to 42 for node operator ylbc3, operated by Zarety LLC, and to 40 for node operator 4isre, operated by Blue Ant LLC respectively. This matches the number of nodes currently deployed under each node operator ID. As I see it, the fact that some of Zarety’s nodes are currently offline or degraded should not be an impediment to node rewards being approved, although it would be a reason not to add them to a subnet and may impact the reward calculation.
Thanks @1eo for providing further background in this thread, and @EnzoPlayer0ne for the updated details. I note that these two NPs have each been funded by a loan from David Fisher, who is also a node provider holding 42 nodes. I agree with some of the commenters that this relationship should have been disclosed at an earlier stage. The required handover declaration contains a statement that says “Each party operates independently, with no undue influence or control over the other’s activities.” This refers to Zarety and Blue Ant respectively and to Dfinity Stiftung, from whom the nodes were handed over, but it could be argued that the underlying intent of this part of the declaration is to ensure that a node provider does not have some influence over more than 42 nodes. Whether David Fisher has influence over Zarety’s and Blue Ant’s nodes could be argued either way. On the one hand, this could be analagous to a few different NPs borrowing from the same bank. On the other hand, given that he is also a node provider and an active IC community member, the relationship is indeed closer than that with a bank and there could arise situations in which the new NPs feel beholden to him in some way. This is all hypothetical and I don’t think there is any ill intent in this arrangement, but that’s not the point of this decision. There’s a good case to be made that more transparency should have been provided earlier on, and that this serves as an example to show that a higher standard of transparency needs to be set. However, the rules at the time of this transaction and at present as approved by the community through proposal 132553 did not make these stipulations, and this is the basis I have used for this decision. I do agree, however, with the intention to raise the standard of transparency and degree of disclosure required, and if approved through an NNS proposal this may result in a change to the reward status of these nodes.
About CodeGov
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 & Neurons’ 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 decentralisation 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.
6 Likes
Proposal 136571 | Tim - CodeGov
Vote: Adopt
This proposal adds DragginCorp SARL as a node provider.
- There is an appropriate forum introduction.
- Self-declaration and identity documents are uploaded on the IC Wiki.
- Hashes of the self-declaration and identity document match the hashes in the proposal.
- However, the proposal is to add DragginCorp as a company as a node provider whereas the ID document identifies the Company Manager (Donna Powell) as an individual. Other recent proposals of this sort have generally provided a verifiable document identifying the company concerned so I was initially uncertain as to whether this proposal met the same benchmark. I appreciate @Thyassa 's additional explanation and willingness to undergo a stricter level of KYC scrutiny, and have no concerns about the authenticity of the proposal. My general approach to any NNS proposal is to be guided by decisions approved through past Governance proposals whenever possible. For this decision I’ve fallen back on proposal 98547 which sets out the current standards for NP self-declarations. It states “The NP shall provide proof that the identity(ies) listed in the self-declaration exist in the real world. The proof can be the official business registration (in case of a business entity) or any document or internet-reference that sufficiently proves the identity of the signers of the self-declaration to the community.” In this case, a proof of identity for either the business entity or the individual signer(s) would meet the standard. As I see it, the provided ID document sufficiently proves the identity of the signer of the self-declaration document. Notwithstanding this, I think it would be well worthwhile for an official business registration to be added to the Wiki whenever this becomes available.
About CodeGov
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 & Neurons’ 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 decentralisation 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.
5 Likes
Thanks for flagging this and taking the time to review. The link on the Wiki page has been updated and now points to the doc with the correct hash. Unfortunately, the update happened after you voted — sorry for the confusion and hassle.
Ant
1 Like
Proposal 136493 – LaCosta | CodeGov
Vote: REJECT
The proposal registers a new NP Anthony_Isaakidis. Although the proposal follows some of the requirements stated here.
- A Forum post by the new NP
- The self-declaration and Proof of Identity documents were uploaded on the IC Wiki
- The hashes of the Self declaration and Proof of Identity documents match the hashes in the proposal
Unfortunately the link the dashboard to the Self Declaration links to a document with a different hash than the one advertised and in order to maintain a consistent record I’ll reject the proposal. I have gone ahead and verifies the new Self Declaration uploaded which matches the hash advertised, so I’d recommend making a new proposal.
About CodeGov
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.
1 Like
Proposal 136497 – LaCosta | CodeGov
Vote: REJECT
The proposal increases the type1.1 rewardable_nodes of Node Operator ylbc3 from 0 to 42 in order to include 42 healthy nodes according to the dashboard and dre tool from the im2 DC.
The node’s Node Operator matches the one in the proposal payload and the NO has the 42 nodes proposed.
Proposal 136504 – LaCosta | CodeGov
Vote: REJECT
The proposal increases the type1.1 rewardable_nodes of Node Operator 4isre from 0 to 42 in order to include 42 healthy nodes according to the dashboard and dre tool from the im1 DC.
The node’s Node Operator matches the one in the proposal payload and the NO has the 42 nodes proposed.
New rules regarding stricter KYC for Node Providers have recently been a topic of great discussion on this thread, where new rules are being discussed.
After talking with DFINITY, @1eo came forward to explain all the details regarding the acquisition of the nodes, loans that were made, and proposed a way to be compliant with new regulations even though they were not yet voted by the community. However this rules will most likely come into effect in the near future. The discussions on this explanation and the explanation itself can be found in this thread
Since the new Node Providers rules are agreed by most of the community and DFINITY itself is working with the community to establish this rules, I think it’s fair to follow them in some sense. The restructure of the entities that control the node machines, in order to become compliant with the new rules, currently fall ultimately into a step 3 as they explain:
with the failure of this step implying the failure of the previous two steps, making the Node Provider yet again not compliant with the rules, and for that reason I am voting to reject.
There is very sound arguments that I considered for the opposite vote. Bids for the silent auction were accepted until November 15th, 2024 much earlier than discussions on this topic started and therefore talks for loans and decision making to acquire this node machines started much earlier.
But nevertheless, this is one case where due to the facts presented, there are grounds for some coherent speculation different from what we had seen previously. Even if they are compliant with the previous rules if due to the facts presented there are some concerns we shouldn’t turn a blind eye for the sake of always sticking to the rules.
Hopefully all the steps can be finalized promptly.
PS: Facts are keywords here 
About CodeGov
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.
4 Likes
Proposal 136571 – LaCosta | CodeGov
Vote: ADOPT
The proposal registers a new NP DragginCorp SARL. The proposal follows the requirements stated here.
- A Forum post by the new NP
- The self-declaration and Proof of Identity documents were uploaded on the IC Wiki
- The hashes of the Self declaration and Proof of Identity documents match the hashes in the proposal
- Node Provider ID is new
Even though all this steps have been followed, I think @Thyassa will understand that we should not proceed in the assumption that the paperwork submitted to resgister the company will be accepted and the company registered. Why not just apply after everything has been formalized? This way the Dashboard proposal on the record will be adopted with the correct information as to who really owns the Node Machines.
Also I don’t know the Monaco law, but a quick query to ChatGPT suggests that this claim is kind of out there. Could you provide more information on this?
My vote will be pending, awaiting for new information, but I’m inclined to reject for the aforementioned reasons
Edit: Voted to adopt under the following conditions for future proposals in order to be fair with requirements on other NPs.
About CodeGov
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.
1 Like
Proposal 136493 – Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: REJECT
Review:
This proposal registers a new Node Provider : Anthony_Isaakidis
The link provided in the proposal points to a self declaration document with a different hash than that state in the proposal.
While the documents seems to be updated, the information in the summary of the proposal is still incorrect. A new proposal should be submitted with the correct documents and links.
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.
Proposal 136504 – Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: ADOPT
Review:
The proposal increases the type1.1 rewardable_nodes of Node Operator 4isre from 0 to 40.
- At the time of this review, all node IDs mentioned in the proposal are listed as healthy on the public dashboard under IM1 data center.
type1.1reward configuration is used.- Total number of rewardable nodes <= permitted node allowance for this site (42)
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.
Hi there!
Apologies in advance for long reply…
Why submit now and not wait until formation.
The formation process can take several months after documentation is submitted. The level of scrutiny and depth of documentation required to start a commercial enterprise is quite vast. If you manage to provide all the documentation, your company will be approved, it just takes time.
(Not helped by the fact that the country shuts down around the grand prix and for the whole of August!)
We are hoping post Caffeine launch there will be increased demand and a need for more node operators so would rather get everything in place beforehand. Given the launch is hopefully just weeks away (per the World Computer Summit agenda - World Computer Summit 2025) we did not want to wait an indefinite amount of time.
Have I provided proof of identity as requested?
Per the wiki, these are current identity requirements:
(2) Identity Proof
The Node Provider shall provide proof that the identity(ies) listed in the self-declaration exist in the real world. The proof can be any document that sufficiently proves the identity of the signers of the self-declaration to the community.
I am the signer of the self-declaration and I have provided my government issued ID, so I believe that fulfils the requirements.
I understand that more information will be required for node providers in the future and will happily provide that when requested.
Once the company has been formally entered into the business directory, I will add that documentation to the wiki.
Regarding the law about company existence:
Monaco defers to French law on most subjects, including for the creation and operation of businesses (Code de Commerce). Under French law a company can begin operating as soon as its incorporation documents are filed with the authorities, and it acquires legal personality from the date of registration.
- Once you have submitted the necessary incorporation documents (for example, les statuts — the articles of association) to the Centre de Formalités des Entreprises (CFE) or the relevant Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce (commercial court registry), the company gains legal personality as of the filing date.
- This legal personality means the company can act, sign contracts, invoice, and operate in its own name even before you receive the official Kbis extract (which is the “identity card” of the company).
This is based on:
- Article L210-6 of the Code de commerce, which provides that a company exists as a legal person as soon as it is registered.
- Article 1842 of the Code civil, which applies more broadly to all types of companies, stating that a company is established upon registration and acquires legal personality from that moment.
4 Likes
Thanks for the through explanation. Still as has been the case with proposals 136497 and 136504, a higher level of scrutiny was required by the community and me in my review. In that case, it would be easier to concede on the basis that all the decisions were made prior to ongoing negotiations of the new NP rules. Since this isn’t the case I think it’s only fair to hold the same level of compliance with the new requirements.
I get that you are hoping to help with the increased demand for more node operators that will come, so I think there’s not much harm in allowing the creation of this Node Provider in order to speed up the process in case all your documents are in compliance by then.
Still if the business registration isn’t handled by then, I will vote to reject all proposals for node rewards to maintain the same standard required by others. This also comes with following all transparency issues and providing all beneficial owners of said business.
1 Like
Yup, totally understand.
Well UBOs are me and Adam. I can upload his ID too. He looks like a Russian crime boss in it! Adam Fomich Powelevsky lol
1 Like
Review: Proposal to Add Node Provider DragginCorp SARL - Node Admin and Participant Management Analysis
Posted by: @Bang, Reginald Digital Land Broker Paul
Date: May 12, 2025
Proposal Link: New Node Provider Proposals - #910 by Thyassa
Summary
- Proposal Overview: This proposal seeks to register DragginCorp SARL as a new Node Provider in the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) ecosystem, as part of ongoing decentralization efforts.
- Node Admin Details: DragginCorp SARL will operate a node at Monaco Telecom DC3, located at 4 Av. Albert II, Monaco City, Monaco (Data Center Specs). The self-declaration document (PDF, SHA256:
0612b23d0b8d5d0520e1ea33b2f58abd7c495d7c92b8f6180cfc426f3a1e39f7)) outlines their operational setup, but hardware specifics are not publicly detailed. - Participant Management: DragginCorp SARL is a French limited liability company (SARL). A proof of identity for an individual, likely a company representative (D. Powell), is provided (ID, SHA256:
fd17549a48169bdac6144212727f5b3e5a54dc0dc6b5f77dac0688d11b67a492)).
Analysis
- Compliance with ICP Standards:
- Data Center: Monaco Telecom DC3 features direct expansion/chilled water AC systems, bi-zone automatic detection, and inert gas fire suppression, meeting Tier 3 reliability standards (99.982% uptime). It’s also eco-responsible, aligning with ICP’s sustainability goals, such as the Proof of Green (PoG) initiative.
- Hardware: The self-declaration document’s SHA256 hash (
0612b23d0b8d5d0520e1ea33b2f58abd7c495d7c92b8f6180cfc426f3a1e39f7) confirms integrity, but hardware details (e.g., Gen2 HW requirements: 64-core CPU, 512 GB RAM, 10 TB SSD, 1 Gbps connectivity) are not specified in the proposal or data center specs. This gap poses a risk to network reliability and security. - IC OS Version: There’s no mention of the IC OS version the node will run, critical for compatibility with NNS-approved updates (e.g., recent updates enabling HTTP outcalls, as discussed in my prior analysis on May 11, 2025).
- Concern: Without hardware and IC OS details, the node’s compliance with ICP standards cannot be verified, risking network performance or consensus integrity.
- Decentralization Impact:
- Geographic Diversity: The node’s location in Monaco City, Monaco, introduces a new jurisdiction to ICP’s node infrastructure, potentially improving the Nakamoto Coefficient by diversifying node locations. However, Monaco’s proximity to existing European nodes (e.g., France, Germany, where 40% of ICP nodes reside per ICP Dashboard, May 2025) limits the decentralization benefit compared to adding nodes in underrepresented regions (e.g., Africa, South America).
- Subnet Distribution: Without subnet assignment details, the impact on subnet balance is unclear. Monaco’s small size (2 km²) raises concerns about concentration risks if Monaco Telecom DC3 hosts multiple ICP nodes, potentially negatively impacting the Nakamoto Coefficient.
- Concern: The decentralization benefit is modest, and concentration risks need further assessment to ensure alignment with ICP’s goals.
- Transparency and Accountability:
- DragginCorp SARL’s legal structure as a French SARL is verifiable, aligning with ICP’s requirement for Node Providers to prove real-world identity (per Node Provider Self-Declaration Wiki).
- The proof of identity for D. Powell (SHA256:
fd17549a48169bdac6144212727f5b3e5a54dc0dc6b5f77dac0688d11b67a492) confirms authenticity, but it’s unclear if it includes proof of address, a requirement for identity verification (as noted in the IRS Identity Verification Web Result). Additionally, only one individual’s ID is provided, leaving the company’s full ownership structure (e.g., shareholders, private investors) undisclosed. - Concern: Partial ownership disclosure and potential gaps in identity verification fall short of ICP’s transparency standards, hindering community accountability.
- Risks and Concerns:
- Regulatory Compliance: Monaco adheres to EU data protection standards (e.g., GDPR), and Monaco Telecom DC3 emphasizes a “stable and protected jurisdiction,” mitigating regulatory risks. However, Monaco’s strict privacy laws may limit community oversight, as data access could be restricted, requiring additional transparency measures.
- Operational Sustainability: Monaco is a high-cost region (e.g., high electricity and data center fees). Without details on rewards (NNS distributes rewards monthly based on ICP’s 30-day average price, per Node Providers Web Result) or a cost management strategy, sustainability is uncertain. Nodes in lower-cost regions (e.g., Germany, France) may offer better cost-to-reward ratios.
- Transparency Gaps: Beyond ownership, the lack of operational specifics (e.g., uptime guarantees, redundancy plans, confirmation of other ICP nodes at Monaco Telecom DC3) raises accountability concerns.
- Concern: High operational costs and transparency gaps pose risks to long-term node viability and community trust.
- Participant Governance:
- The proposal doesn’t outline how neuron holders can audit DragginCorp’s node operations at Monaco Telecom DC3, potentially centralizing control with the provider.
- There’s no mention of governance mechanisms to ensure DragginCorp aligns with community interests, such as regular performance reports or community audits.
- Concern: The absence of governance mechanisms undermines ICP’s decentralized ethos, limiting the community’s ability to monitor and verify node operations.
Recommendations
- Voting Recommendation: I am undecided on this proposal “until” the following critical gaps are addressed. Approving the proposal in its current form risks introducing a non-compliant node, compromising network reliability, and undermining decentralization due to transparency and governance shortfalls.
- Conditions for Future Support: I would fully support a revised proposal if DragginCorp addresses the following:
- Provide detailed hardware specs (confirming Gen2 HW compliance) and the IC OS version to ensure technical compliance with ICP standards.
- Disclose full ownership details (e.g., shareholders, private investors) and confirm the proof of identity includes proof of address to meet transparency requirements.
- Clarify the intended subnet and confirm whether Monaco Telecom DC3 hosts other ICP nodes to assess concentration risks and decentralization impact.
- Outline a cost management strategy for operating in Monaco, including expected NNS rewards and operational cost estimates, to ensure sustainability.
- Propose governance mechanisms for community oversight, such as regular performance reports, community audits, or metrics accessible via the ICP Dashboard.
- Alternative Path: If these conditions are met, I would support a 3-month trial period for the node to monitor uptime, regulatory compliance, and community feedback before full integration, ensuring alignment with CodeGov’s mission.
Community Questions
- How can we balance the benefits of adding a node in Monaco with the need for greater transparency, especially given Monaco’s strict privacy laws?
- Should we prioritize nodes in underrepresented regions (e.g., Africa, South America) over additional European nodes to maximize decentralization impact?
- What governance mechanisms can the community implement to audit node operations in high-cost regions like Monaco, ensuring long-term sustainability and accountability?
Conclusion
The proposal to add DragginCorp SARL as a Node Provider, with operations at Monaco Telecom DC3, offers potential geographic diversity by introducing a node in Monaco, a stable and secure jurisdiction with a robust data center infrastructure. However, significant gaps in hardware specifics, ownership transparency, operational sustainability, and governance mechanisms pose risks to ICP’s network reliability and decentralization goals. As a reviewer, I am undecided until these issues are addressed, ensuring that new Node Providers meet the highest standards of compliance, transparency, and community oversight. I encourage DragginCorp to revise the proposal with the recommended details and look forward to community feedback to refine this proposal’s path forward, advancing our shared mission of decentralization.
Tags: #NodeAdmin #ParticipantManagement #Decentralization #CodeGov
1 Like
This looks LLM generated. Sapling agrees →
I wonder how many hallucinations it contains. I suspect it demands more time to read than it took to write. I think content like this should be clearly labelled as AI generated at the top.
@Severin, are there any mechanisms for flagging this type of content automatically. I’m not saying it should be hidden, but I think readers should be aware of the sort of content they’re reading (particularly when there are governance implications attached).
3 Likes
While this review is well-formatted and touches on relevant ICP governance concepts, I’d caution the community not to conflate surface polish with critical depth. This looks and reads like it was generated by a language model — and that’s not inherently bad — but it means we need to challenge its assumptions more rigorously.
For example:
- It emphasizes the lack of IC OS version and hardware specs, which are valid concerns — but doesn’t acknowledge that NNS node onboarding processes already include a hardware verification step via DFINITY registry teams before assignment.
- It mentions decentralization in abstract terms (e.g., “Nakamoto Coefficient impact”) without citing actual subnet saturation or regionally balanced node stats from the latest ICP Dashboard.
- It raises cost sustainability concerns for Monaco but does not provide any comparative economic analysis with other European locations where node providers are already operating viably.
- The document questions governance mechanisms without recognizing that node reward penalization and delisting processes are already governed by proposal-based slashing and reward metrics.
This kind of review may be useful as a conversation starter, but it lacks specific references to verifiable data or ICP governance precedents. I’d prefer that we ground the discussion in real node registry behaviors, subnet load metrics, and performance penalties, rather than a generic checklist.
Let’s work from facts, not just well-written concerns.
EDIT: I think we’ve entered an age where bold text means you had AI write it.
5 Likes
Thank you. I need this review to help access further. It is an AI draft to get the community involved. Now I have engagement data and rec’s going forward so as to utilize in the future.
Appreciate the replies!