Looking forward to the forum post outlining the setup process and key learnings.
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.
The proposal increases the type1.1rewardable_nodes of Node Operator 4isre from 40 to 42 in order to include nodes ja5ya and oxfpl in the im1 DC.
The node’s Node Operator matches the one in the proposal payload and the NO has the proposed 42 nodes.
As per the proposal summary, the NP’s post and the previous proposal summary the hardware issue of this two nodes had been previously disclosed and having this been fixed by the NP, the nodes are now ready to be rewardable.
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.
I’ve decided to hand over the nodes located at the TY2 data center in Japan. I identified a node provider Anthony Isaakidis (@alpha.agentic) who has confirmed his ability to acquire and operate the nodes. Please find the details below.
New node provider: Anthony Isaakidis
The signed handover statement, containing the same information as below, can be found here.
28 node machines from Aksinia Stavskaya will be transferred to Anthony Isaakidis. The following details outline the specifics of this transfer:
Data Center Location:
The 28 node machines will be operated by the new node provider in the following data center:
-28 node machines in TY2 (Equinix TY6)
Declaration of independence: Both the existing and new node providers confirm that they are not related in any way and operate independently, with neither holding majority control or exerting undue influence over the other.
Additionally, the new provider has affirmed that he will comply with all current and future KYC requirements. He has also acknowledged and confirmed his obligation to remain fully independent from all other existing node providers on the Internet Computer.
Proposals to formalize this transition will be submitted shortly. Your support in adopting them would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to either of us.
Do you mind me asking how much (and what sort of) control you are retaining? Same question for the ‘influence’ part of your statement. I noticed it doesn’t say ‘any control’ or ‘any influence’.
Can I ask what the terms of the transfer are? Has @alpha.agentic bought them outright or is there a payment plan or anything of that sort?
After the transfer will you be receiving any portion of the rewards that are distributed to @alpha.agentic?
These questions are really to Anthony (@alpha.agentic) but they do also relate to you as I assume the reason you are no longer being a node provider is because Dfinity has spoken to you about the connections that were found.
With that in mind, Anthony, can you confirm that you have no connections (personal, business or otherwise) with the following node providers or their ultimate beneficiary owners?
OneSixtyTwo Digital
Syngum
Starbase
Protocol 16
I ask this because we need to ensure that the nodes are not just going to someone else that the UBO knows, given that you are in the same country and only joined the forums after the new KYC rules were mentioned, it does raise some eyebrows.
Hi @Lorimer, the wording was based on the process guide posted here. Since there’s no exact template for this situation, I’ve adapted the available wording as best as possible.
I confirm that neither party holds any control or influence over the other. Perhaps @alpha.agentic can confirm the same by replying here.
@katiep, are you right person to ask about getting that advised wording updated?
Thanks @aksinia_stavskaya, last question. Do you mind me asking where you advertised the nodes that you’re shedding, or did you choose @alpha.agentic as a buyer?
Proposes to set node rewards, but no background information, forum link or links to supporting documents have been provided.
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, API Boundary Node 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.
I am submitting a proposal to set Gen-1.1 rewards for my 14 nodes located in mb1 (Maribor, Slovenia). These nodes have now been fully transferred and are ready to join the network. To clarify, I confirm that I am completely independent, solely managing and operating all 14 nodes, with no external funding or support from any other node provider.
Please find the necessary information regarding my nodes under the new remuneration structure.
No rush indeed.
Step 1 create forum post, step 2 create proposal & link forum post.
It’s not personal, we advocate for as detailed information as possible to be included with the proposal so that the average person voting on it can make an informed decision, without lurking on the dev forum, np matrix and so on.
With that said you can always ask Dfinity to vote yes, in order to not have to re submit the proposal since all the nodes appear to be online with Status Awaiting in the MB1 DC in Maribor and the ozfkj NO is assigned to NP BlockFinance.
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.
This proposal sets the rewardable_nodes count for the Node Operator of Node Provider BlockFinance to 14.
BlockFinance received allowance to onboard nodes under proposal 135552, after passing the Node Provider registration in proposal 135199. The current proposal finalizes the onboarding by enabling rewards for the 14 deployed nodes:
I voted to Adopt this proposal because it aligns with the current requirements for node reward activation, maintains transparency and procedural consistency:
The Node Provider was officially registered and later authorized to deploy nodes following the two-step process (registration + onboarding).
The number of nodes (14) matches the count of the nodes onboarded and awaiting for subnet.
The proposed reward type (1.1) is consistent with motion proposal 132553, as explained in this forum post.
Reward activation proposals such as this are a necessary final step after successful registration and onboarding. Given that the requirements have been met, this proposal is consistent with overall requirements.
About Krzysztof Żelazko
Independent reviewer and Governance Lead at ICP Hub Poland. Votes manually on NNS proposals related to decentralization, node operations, and governance integrity. Aims to support transparency and the long-term health of the Internet Computer ecosystem by making fair and well-reasoned decisions.
Thank you all for your valuable feedback, which is greatly appreciated. I am submitting a new proposal to set Gen-1.1 rewards for my 14 nodes located in mb1 (Maribor, Slovenia). These nodes have now been fully transferred and are ready to join the network. To clarify, I confirm that I am completely independent, solely managing and operating all 14 nodes, with no external funding or support from any other node provider.
Please find the necessary information regarding my nodes under the new remuneration structure.
This proposal contains the same payload as proposal 136914, submitted earlier, which is currently still being voted on.
While the extended description in this version adds more context, submitting two proposals with identical payloads creates unnecessary duplication in the governance process.
I voted to Reject this proposal because:
Proposal 136914 was submitted first and should be evaluated independently.
Approving both proposals could result in redundant or conflicting actions on the NNS.
Best practices in governance recommend avoiding multiple active proposals with the same operational effect.
If additional information is needed to support an earlier proposal, it should be posted on the forum or shared via other ICP community channels, rather than duplicating the proposal itself.
About Krzysztof Żelazko
Independent reviewer and Governance Lead at ICP Hub Poland. Votes manually on NNS proposals related to decentralization, node operations, and governance integrity. Aims to support transparency and the long-term health of the Internet Computer ecosystem by making fair and well-reasoned decisions.
This proposal assigns the Node Operator ID 5of43-k6u44-qnx76-nu2es-wm4vv-lidb2-4uveq-j6f62-iiagz-kaafq-gae to a new Node Operator under the Node Provider Anthony Isaakidis. If adopted, this Node Operator will be granted an allowance to operate up to 28 nodes in the ty2 data center.
I voted to Adopt this proposal for the following reasons:
The current Node Provider responsible for these 28 nodes, Aksinia Stavskaya, is fully exiting the node provider role and has agreed to transfer all nodes and responsibilities to Anthony Isaakidis.
A Node Machine Handover Statement, signed by both parties, has been published and is available on the Internet Computer Wiki, ensuring the legitimacy of the transfer.
Both parties have explicitly confirmed that they are independent from one another:
The seller confirms stepping away entirely from node operations in this post.
The buyer confirms being fully independent from all existing NP’s here.
This appears to be a clean and transparent transition of infrastructure, fully aligned with NNS decentralization principles.
About Krzysztof Żelazko
Independent reviewer and Governance Lead at ICP Hub Poland. Votes manually on NNS proposals related to decentralization, node operations, and governance integrity. Aims to support transparency and the long-term health of the Internet Computer ecosystem by making fair and well-reasoned decisions.
We advised him to submit a correct proposal, as the first one did not have the required link to the forum post with all the details. You were the only one who was going to vote to approve that one, I think.
@alpha.agentic, before voting on proposal 136967 I’d appreciate it if you could share some further information about the context of the transfer. Would you or @aksinia_stavskaya please address my outstanding question below please?
