New Node Provider Proposals

[Mico]

No neuron owns a node lol. You are reaching for a narrative here.

Different people who developed wtn are node owners but the dao or neurons have no nodes.

[Lorimer]

@Lorimer

Wouldn’t it have made more business sense to see what the market would have been willing to pay for those nodes? Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘data center coordination and any related work’?

@alpha.agentic, do you mind me asking what your original plan was when you initially registered your plans to become a node provider? Were you aware that @aksinia_stavskaya, or other node providers, were looking to shed some nodes, or were you planning to onboard some entirely new nodes?

Hi @alpha.agentic, @aksinia_stavskaya, would you be able to provide a response to the above when you get a chance please? Thanks.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 136914 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: REJECT

Missing background info and links for the NP’s documents.

Proposal 136966 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

The proposal increases the type1.1 rewardable_nodes of Node Operator ozfkj from 0 to 14 in order to include nodes deployed the mb1 DC.
The node’s Node Operator matches the one in the proposal payload and the NO has the proposed 14 nodes.

This proposal is an iteration of proposal 136914 that was rejected due to missing info, which has been rectified.

Proposal 136967 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: REJECT

As part of the Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months, the Node Provider ANTHONY ISAAKIDIS is creating the Node Operator 5of43 to hold 28 nodes in the ty2 DC that are being handed over by NP Aksinia Stavskaya.
The following steps were followed:

1. A Forum post by the buyer NP
2. The self-declaration document was uploaded on the IC Wiki
3. The Node Operator ID proposed is new
4. A statement, published on the IC wiki, signed by both the current and the new node provider

Currently the NP has a total of 0 type1.1 nodes which means it can add the proposed 28 nodes and still have a possibility of adding an additional 14 nodes before meeting the maximum number of nodes 42.
NP Aksinia Stavskaya has currently 28 type1.1 nodes on DC ty2 controlled by NO pgyq7-ffu4g-orxmh-5mg2z-jebge-ipkxx-7sxpt-yu55y-72q3t-nnok5-dae, which matches the number of nodes and DC proposed.

This proposal should have been submitted alongside a proposal to set the rewardable_nodes of NP Aksinia Stavskaya to 0.
Furthermore the Handover documents lacks some of the requirements set in the Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months. One valid document from a previous approved proposal can be seen here. For this reasons I have voted to reject.

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.

[alexu]

The DFINITY Foundation has ADOPTED the proposal 136967 for the creation of a Node Operator record for Anthony Isaakidis. We would like to clarify our position on some of the community’s concerns:

1. Sale Transparency: We acknowledge that this sale was not transparent. While current network rules do not forbid private sales, we agree that greater transparency benefits the entire ecosystem. DFINITY encourages future discussions on this topic to help sellers get the best possible price and to build a fairer marketplace for all.
2. Node Rewards: This proposal is strictly administrative; it allows Anthony to manage the nodes under his own operator record but does not assign him any rewards. Before Anthony can be rewarded, a future proposal will be required. At that time, the previous operator’s (Aksinia’s) rewardable nodes will be set to zero or her record will be removed entirely.
3. Operator Independence: To address concerns about potential connections to other node providers, Anthony has voluntarily enrolled in our Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) audit pilot. We look forward to officially welcoming him to the network upon the successful completion of this verification process.

[timk11]

Proposal 136994 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Reject

This proposal is to add a new node provider, but only the principal ID is given (no name), no background is provided and there are no links to a forum introduction or to self-declaration and identity documents as per the requirements outlined on this page of the IC Wiki.

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.

[krzysztofzelazko]

Proposal 136994 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

This proposal adds a new Node Provider: gtdcl-kijoz-5fk3p-acmop-gmocy-nhpeq-a5fay-7q5ol-4lmdk-ldz4m-aqe.

I voted to Reject this proposal because, despite providing a principal ID, the proposal lacks essential required documentation:

1. Forum introduction.
2. Proof of identity and self-declaration.
3. Publicly accessible link (e.g., to the Internet Computer Wiki) containing verification documents.

These elements are necessary for the community to validate the identity, independence, and credibility of the applicant. Without this information, we cannot assess the integrity and transparency of the proposal.

Due diligence and verifiability are fundamental to the Node Provider onboarding process. Proposals must include accessible and verifiable documentation to uphold transparency and allow the community to make informed decisions.

---

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.

[dfisher]

As Leo described, I provided a loan to Enzo and Leo so that their respective LLCs, Blue Ant LLC and Zarety LLC, could purchase nodes. I did so because it was a good investment opportunity. As a passive debt provider with no legal right to, or physical access to the nodes, I did not believe I was compromising the independence of the nodes.

That said, as community discussions evolved, it became clear Node Providers would not be permitted to provide debt financing to other Node Providers. Even though the rules still have not yet been established, after consulting with DFINITY, Enzo, Leo and I decided to proactively re-organize in order to comply with what we believe will be the future state of affairs.

I am pleased to announce the following:

Firstly, ParaFi Technologies LLC, a reputable infrastructure provider, will be purchasing nodes from Rivonia Holdings LLC. Rivonia Holdings LLC will begin the proceedings to offboard from the NNS, and ParaFi will begin the proceedings to onboard onto the NNS shortly. Once the NNS completes these steps, ParaFi will wholly own the nodes that were previously owned by Rivonia, and the data center lease will be transferred to them. While the legal documents have been signed, I expect the full NNS approval process to take 2-4 weeks which is required for the transaction to complete. Concretely, this means the NNS would adopt the proposals for ParaFi Technologies to register as a node provider, assume the 28-node allocation in JV1 and the 14-node allocation in NY1, and configure rewards for all 42 nodes accordingly. We would like to ask DFINITY DRE to remove Rivonia nodes from all the subnets.

Secondly, I bought Zarety LLC from Leo which owns a set of nodes in the Isle of Man. As part of the transaction, Leo will relinquish any right to Zarety LLC, including a managerial role, ownership of the nodes, and access to the data center. While we plan on updating the wiki page, we do not intend on submitting any NNS proposals as the entity (Zarety LLC) will remain intact.

And thirdly, Sisyphus AG, a Swiss crypto dev shop controlled by Enzo and Leo, where I am a minority 20% owner, purchased Blue Ant LLC from Enzo. Enzo will remain as manager, although the UBO will change. Nothing will change here from an entity or managerial perspective so similarly a NNS proposal will not be submitted, although the wiki page will update for the UBO.

As a passionate ICP community member, node provider, Synapse member, and ecosystem investor, I am extremely excited about all the good things brewing for ICP. Hopefully all the efforts to validate the independence of Node Providers will help instill more confidence in the security of the Internet Computer.

[Phasma]

Appreciate the transparency, but I have to be blunt — the Blue Ant situation doesn’t feel like real separation at all.

The person who acquired Blue Ant LLC also holds a 20% stake in Sisyphus AG, which now owns the entity. That’s not independence — that’s just shifting influence around. It may technically check a box, but it clearly undermines the spirit of what node provider independence is supposed to mean.

Let’s not pretend decentralization is happening if the same people still have meaningful financial ties behind the scenes. This kind of setup looks like an attempt to stay one step ahead of enforcement while maintaining indirect control — and it sends the wrong signal to the community.

If we start tolerating these structures now, we’re setting a dangerous precedent for how governance can be gamed later.

[WebTreeSoftwareSolut]

Seeing that parafi is listed as one of 9yards capitals holdings would you be willing to disclose 9yards equity in that venture?

[Thyassa]

Hi David

I was doing some basic due diligence into ParaFi Technologies LLC. Are you sue that is the correct company vehicle? I could not find any company registered in the USA or Europe with that company name.

Parafi Technologies appears to be an arm of Parafi Capital, a venture capital firm per a 2024 article that names Kevin Yedid-Botton as a partner - ParaFi Technologies aims to be a ‘public utility provider’ to blockchain ecosystems - Blockworks

There are many companies called Parafi Capital, all registered to the same Greenwich address with only an agent named.

For example:

• Parafi Capital Limited Partnership - Conneticut LP 1371922
• PARAFI CAPITAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - New York 6611360
• Parafi Capital LP - Lei - 2549005LEO7EQR4J8D56 (Delaware Corp 6727483)

Parafi Capital has raised funds from many VC firms including Dragonfly Capital Partners, Bain Capital Ventures, and 9Yards Capital.

On the Parafi Capital website Ben Forman, Kevin YB and Adrian Uberto are named as partners but it is unclear if they are the ultimate UBOs or just employees. - ParaFi | Blockchain and Digital Asset Investment Firm

The Parafi Tech website says that they are node provider equivalents on Solana, Ethereum, Aptos and Avalanche networks. There is no information on the team or financial backing behind this venture. https://parafi.tech/

Given that your company is an investor in Parafi, I do not think that the foundation should accept this sale as satisfying their independence requirements.

@bjoernek

Also, I agree with @Phasma on this point. It does appear that you are using a technicality to maintain influence over multiple node providers.

@Phasma

The person who acquired Blue Ant LLC also holds a 20% stake in Sisyphus AG, which now owns the entity. That’s not independence — that’s just shifting influence around. It may technically check a box, but it clearly undermines the spirit of what node provider independence is supposed to mean.

Let’s not pretend decentralization is happening if the same people still have meaningful financial ties behind the scenes. This kind of setup looks like an attempt to stay one step ahead of enforcement while maintaining indirect control — and it sends the wrong signal to the community.