New Node Provider Proposals

Roadmap
,
1171

Proposal 137216 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

As part of the Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months, the Node Provider ParaFi Technologies NS LLC is creating the Node Operator dmqux to hold 14 nodes in the ny1 DC that are being handed over by NP Rivonia Holdings LLC.
The following steps were followed:

  1. A Forum post by the buyer NP (and a further one for this proposal) :white_check_mark:
  2. The self-declaration, Proof of Identity, Assessment of Independence and handover statement documents were uploaded on the IC Wiki :white_check_mark:
  3. The Node Operator ID proposed is new :white_check_mark:
  4. A statement, published on the IC wiki, signed by both the current and the new node provider :white_check_mark:

Currently the NP has a total of 0 type1.1 nodes which means it can add the proposed 14 nodes and still have a possibility of adding an additional 28 nodes before meeting the maximum number of nodes 42.

For reference on the transaction of the nodes bought by ParaFi Technologies NS LLC check the following post

This proposal also follows the removal of the Node Operators from NP Rivonia Holdings LLC on proposals 137077 and 137077.

As I state in my previous review for the registration of NP ParaFi Technologies NS LLC:

On another note:

Looking at comments like this is sad and almost shows no progress in the conversation that were had until now. So now not even audits are enough. This type of comments come in the form of “let’s achieve decentralization” but mean “I see myself as a regulator/government and only when I have the power to take away your assets will I have achieve decentralization”.

Not only are most people not accepting responses from @andy-parafi but also seem to take in higher regard posts on a forum than a signed document!!!

I didn’t want this post to be like this but I feel this topic as come to be absurd where reasonable arguments are lost in the face of this type of comments.

I don’t feel any problem in accepting this proposal specially with an audit being in the horizon that will confirm if anything is untruthful here

I only accept a proposals for increasing the rewards after the audit is done which hopefully will finalize the process.

The objective of bringing auditors to the issue was to stop conspiracy theories and have trust in the independence of NPs but is warning that some people can’t remove themselves from controlling the process and information.

About CodeGov - reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance
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.
2 Likes
1172

Proposal 137217 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

As part of the Steps for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months, the Node Provider ParaFi Technologies NS LLC is creating the Node Operator mwn4q to hold 28 nodes in the jv1 DC that are being handed over by NP Rivonia Holdings LLC.
The following steps were followed:

  1. A Forum post by the buyer NP (and a further one for this proposal) :white_check_mark:
  2. The self-declaration, Proof of Identity, Assessment of Independence and handover statement documents were uploaded on the IC Wiki :white_check_mark:
  3. The Node Operator ID proposed is new :white_check_mark:
  4. A statement, published on the IC wiki, signed by both the current and the new node provider :white_check_mark:

Currently the NP has a total of 0 type1.1 nodes, considering not yet approved proposal 137216 the total would be of 14 type1.1 nodes, which means it can add the proposed 28 nodes and still have a possibility of adding an additional 28 nodes before meeting the maximum number of nodes 42.

For reference on the transaction of the nodes bought by ParaFi Technologies NS LLC check the following post

This proposal also follows the removal of the Node Operators from NP Rivonia Holdings LLC on proposals 137077 and 137077.

About CodeGov - reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance
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.
3 Likes
1173

“Credible, reliable, and sensible” people would generally point to a factual untruth when throwing this word around.

Fact: the seller is selling the nodes due to non-compliance

Fact: the sale was not public.

Fact: according to their own website 9 yards has equity in parafi.

Just because they are able to check all the blocks for a potential audit doesnt mean anything.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.

And this duck is not looking very decentralized.

3 Likes
1174

Factual Truths. You chose not to read the Assessment of Independence where the UBOs are stated.

This feel like insinuating that DFINITY is favoring companies and going against decentralization :thinking:
What are your sources?

3 Likes
1175

Hello Sven and other dear readers,

I would like to propose hosting a new node center from Ho Chi Minh City - Vietnam, in order to spread the concentration of the node centers further.

My background is social work, I am a small entrepreneur and will emigrate from Europe to Vietnam to teach the English langauge and hopefully important life skills and empowerment to the youth there. Allowing me to be a node provider would be aligned with Dfinity’s vision of decentralisation.

If possible and in agreement with the community, I am open to the idea of co-hosting or maybe buying nodes from current providers.

Tldr;

  • lets increase global spread of node centers and set up a base in Vietnam;
  • Instant visibility that covers a large partion of SEA;
  • cost-efficient, Vietnam has one of the cheapest energy prices in the world;
  • growing economy and possibilities for local partnerships in SEA;
  • identity of the provider: social work background, grass-roots level empowerment & decentralisation, of the people for the people.
  • open to cooperation!

Please don’t hesitate to message me :slight_smile:
Best regards

2 Likes
1176

(post deleted by author)

1177

Hello ICP Community,
As you can see, I have prepared my declaration document, and I have just submitted my third proposal to become a node provider. My self-introduction and detailed declaration file are included in the proposal link. I warmly welcome your support and guidance. Thank you once again.

https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/137251

3 Likes
1178

Proposal 137251 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 Adopt this proposal because it satisfies the current requirements for registering new Node Providers. Clear documentation, public transparency, and consistency with previous onboarding standards were met:

  1. A proper self-introduction has been posted on the forum post.

  2. The self-declaration and proof of identity documents have been uploaded to the Internet Computer Wiki.

  3. The hashes provided in the proposal match those in the Internet Computer Wiki and confirm documents integrity:

  • Self-Declaration
    SHA-256 checksum: cfb7063affab054bead940be5186f77e41130cee66221bbf096ad99c7aa2bf53

  • Proof of Identity
    SHA-256 checksum:
    1762783cb2fac4e7d8999ed52e6f240c88ee6d879ff3a19cc648a140cd62538f

  • Assessment of Independence
    SHA-256 checksum:
    799e6e4241beb782691ec2ceb5311b06a4f252072b85173d5f35fb3462f74a3d

While it’s important to rigorously assess all new Node Provider registrations, this proposal showed an appropriate level of transparency and due diligence.

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.
2 Likes
1179

The NP independence initiatives currently taking place and being planned are down to community members exhibiting the sort of critical thinking and due diligence that you’re disparaging. ‘Progress in the conversation’ is happening in spite of dismissive input, not because of it. Similarly, describing active governance participation which challenges the status quo as vigilantism is utterly ridiculous in the context of web 3.

On another note:

  • Have you read FATF documentation and guidance. Do you understand it?
  • You must be aware that a plan should be in place to account for the fact that audits represent a snapshot in time. Periodic re-evaluation is known to be needed and the details around that need sorting out. I’d like to know what the plan is.
  • Misrepresentation and deliberate concealment are indicators of higher risk. FATF does not advocate for a blanket one size fits all approach. Measurably higher risk affects decisions such as the sensible frequency for re-evaluation, as well as the ownership percentages that may be deemed to be significant.
  • 25% is quite literally the least ‘safe’ percentage that can be applied while still fitting within the general framework (not the domain-specific framework that should be devised based on the context). More info.
  • You should also be aware that temporary window-dressing is perfectly possible and achievable. I’d like to see more discussion about how this is being accounted for in the approach that DFINITY is applying to organising these audits. I encourage you to take an interest in this too.
3 Likes
1180

Proposals #137216 & 137217 — ZoLee | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted

Reason:
The proposals are correct and in line with the steps needed. NP ParaFi Technologies NS LLC is setting NO id dmqux for 14 nodes in the NY1 DC and NO id mwn4q for 28 nodes in JV1 DC.

About CodeGov - reliable, credible, and sensible NNS governance
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
1181

Sounds like you are trying to reject the node provider even though they jumped through lp the new hoops. All because you want to add more hoops before anyone else can join.

If you are voting based on your want of future requirements then it seems you’re voting with a bias.

It should be simple. Did they satisfy the new rules that were put in place?

The answer is yes. But for some strange reason you are still rejecting due to your feelings of the new rules not being enough.

2 Likes
1182

I completely agree. The answer is no, they have not. An audit has not yet taken place but is supposed to have been.

I think you’re too close to this Mico to see things objectively. I’m a stickler for the rules and always have been because I strongly believe that’s what web 3 needed.

2 Likes
1183

Proposal #137216 — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: ADOPT
Review
This proposal adds principal ID dmqux as a Node Operator of Node Provider: 2hl5k - ParaFi Technologies NS LLC

Proposal #137217 — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: ADOPT
Review
This proposal adds principal ID mwn4q as a Node Operator of Node Provider: 2hl5k - ParaFi Technologies NS LLC

Additional Comments
There’s been quite a bit of discussion around the above proposals, and although I’m coming in a little late, I wanted to share Aviate Labs’ perspective. Just to be clear, this is based on my personal understanding and how I currently approach voting. If you disagree, that’s totally fair. This isn’t meant to convince anyone what’s right or wrong, but rather to explain the reasoning behind my position.

My Guiding Principle:
I evaluate these proposals based on the rules and expectations that have been officially adopted by the NNS i.e., any rules or guidelines in any motion proposals that has been adopted.

For these proposals mentioned in the review above, here are the key references I’ve used:

  • Proposal 98547 - Motion for Self-Declaration
  • Proposal 136573 - Pilot to Assess NP Independence (which outlines expectations for the enhanced self-declaration and independence questionnaire)

I’ve also taken into account the following community guidance (not formally adopted, but still relevant for context):

  • Forum Post - which suggested that new Node Provider registration proposals include the updated forms from Proposal 136573.

From what I’ve seen, ParaFi has followed the updated process and included the enhanced/additional documentation, even though that wasn’t explicitly mandated by motion proposal 136573. So they’ve complied with both the motion requirements and the guidance outlined in the forum.

What remains unclear is how exactly the audit process by a third party will be integrated into the onboarding workflow, for instance, whether it’s a prerequisite before any proposal is adopted, or something that follows a few months after deployment. That hasn’t yet been formally defined by an NNS motion.

My Conclusion:
Given all that I have voted to adopt as I don’t see a clear basis to reject the proposal on the grounds of non-compliance. Based on current expectations, ParaFi has done what’s required. Should any issues arise in the future, they’ll be subject to whatever accountability mechanisms the community ultimately agrees on (e.g., loss of rewardable node status, or removal from the registry).

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.

4 Likes
1184

Thanks for going into details regarding your reasoning @louisevelayo, this was helpful. In particular the way that you acknowledged @bjoernek’s Forum Post, and where you see lack of clarity.

I think if we’re to accept that the outcome of any audit determines the right for any NP to operate as an NP, then the outcome of any audit is information that the NNS needs to determine whether… →

In this ParaFi scenario, the NNS has not received ‘all necessary information upfront’. But I understand that this can be interpreted differently, and hasn’t been made crystal clear by a motion.

What I have found concerning is how statements that have been made by ParaFi (that are wholly inconsistent with the 9 Yard’s Capital) have been brushed to the side. Lack of clarity paired with inconsistent information seems like reason enough to hold off adopting until clarity can be obtained. Decentralisation is about seeing things differently. In this case I am no doubt in the minority.

1 Like
1185

Sorry Alex but didn’t you receive a large “donation” from the people that are trying to push David fisher out of the ecosystem?

If I remember correctly you got 10k icp from Adam.

It’s hard to see where you are coming from when every rule has been followed by parafi. It’s either trying to complain about the new audits not being enough because they satisfy the requirements or that even with answers you assume they are still a cluster.

You are refusing to accept any answer and it’s showing bias.

2 Likes
1186

Hello ICswitch,

Could you please clarify the following:

  1. A current business license from the state administration for market regulation or the local AMR?
  2. Registered tax and compliance status with China?
  3. If the entity is formed in a foreign jurisdiction:
    a. The exact name of the registered entity.
    b. The jurisdiction of the registration.
    c. The file number or registry link.
    d. Whether it has established a legal presence in China as a Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise or Representative Office.

Appreciate your clarification and support as we move forward.

1187

My bias is that I believe in strict adherence to rules and regulations, and I look for opportunities to reject any proposal that has security implications. I have always done this, and I have almost always been the exception in the way I approach things.

I was like this as soon as I got involved in Web 3 and TAGGR.

My very first proposal review resulted in me arguing with X and @ulan about the security implications of introducing a new rewards option. I believe the community appreciated my approach, and I very quickly became a recognised reviewer, spotting numerous bugs, one of which was critical and for which I was awarded a bug bounty. Bounty’s have a tendency to divide opinion and stir up controversy amongst the community, and that time was no exception. History repeats itself.

I was invited into CodeGov (no longer a member and don't recommend it) because of my experience, attention to detail and strict adherence to rules and standards.

There is no shortage of examples of me rejecting IC OS proposals when others were happy to adopt. My research into these proposals was always detailed and always placed the importance of the proposal not misrepresenting itself as a priority. No motion proposal told me that this was important. It just obviously is (at least to me). I would reject these extremely critical proposals simply for the proposal summary missing out one of the relevant commits (or similar).

I received ‘bounties’ from Wenzel for my contributions (as have, and as do others).

I have been like this in my entire history reviewing WaterNeuron proposals

I’ve received two ‘bounties’ for this, and have even pointed out high security bugs, such as double spending bugs, for which no bounty was awarded (another thing that fed into my decision to stop reviewing WaterNeuron proposals and leave that community).

In any case, you’re aware of how passionately I defended small holders who would be left with no rewards after one of the proposals, and I passionately advocated for a fix (for the issue that I pointed out).

There are many more examples where I passionately argued with many members of the community who wished for WTN neurons to remain transferable. I continued to make the case that this was a security threat, and no doubt this is now a factor that contributes to WTN being difficult to attack from a governance perspective (as has been demonstrated).

Many more examples of my tendency to disagree with the status quo, or point things out that others have missed, could be brought up.

I have been like this for my entire history reviewing NNS proposals since having left CodeGov

There are countless debates (even arguments) where I keenly defend adherence to the IC Target Topology (this wasn’t the done thing before I started doing it).

My subnet management reviews have always been detailed and have always sought reasons to reject (or in other words ways for the IC to improve).

I have received many ‘bounties’ directly from DFINITY for my hard work.

I have now even received a bounty from a whale who appreciated my efforts to secure the IC

This is one of many posts I have created that highlight security issues on the IC. I had no idea who Adam Powell was before I posted it, and the bounty he awarded me was retrospective.

This has 100% gone to increasing the stake of my 8yr neuron. If I’m biased, it is, and always has been about protecting the IC and all who stake on it, and all who can see what the world can one day be with this technology.

For your information, that post is one of the main things that got the ball rolling with this whole NP independence initiative.

I would add that the IC is very lucky to have whales like Adam.

I take exception to your suggestion. Anyone who has followed me understands who I am and where my loyalties lie, particularly if you’ve seen me defending VP non-transferability recently.

In answer to your question below, I should not have to repeat my reasoning more than 5 clear and explicit times (just read my prior posts).

2 Likes
1188

Why does this seem to mean nothing to you then?

It is clearly stated that all your concerns have been addressed and is signed by both parties. What else is missing?

2 Likes
1189

Proposal 137256 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

This proposal removes the Node Operator: g3nqx-pr6l2-lc6ew-e3atl-453oe-4ahoe-znboc-7a2yb-pl6zx-4x7xj-zae.

The operator was originally associated with Node Provider Carbon Twelve and responsible for 4 nodes in the pr1 data center. These nodes are being transferred to Decentralized Entities Foundation, and the removal of this Node Operator entry finalizes the transition.

I voted to Adopt this proposal because:

  1. The transition of node ownership has been transparently communicated and confirmed in a forum post, where DEF shared detailed plans for the migration and long-term node stewardship.
  2. The new Node Provider plans to relocate the nodes from the pr1 data center to es1 to improve decentralization and reduce operational costs. Removing the original Node Operator entry ensures that pr1 does not exceed its 4-node allowance.
  3. The transition is being handled with care, especially when it comes to subnet responsibilities. DEF plans to move those responsibilities first before physically relocating any hardware, which shows thoughtful planning and helps ensure network stability.

This proposal helps keep the registry accurate and reflects a clear and well-managed shift in infrastructure within the Internet Computer ecosystem.

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.
1190

Proposal 137257 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

This proposal removes the Node Operator: gyzti-tfcdb-uikoy-udtxn-vwv6w-mvcw7-kot2t-py7ob-idpla-ft5nl-gqe.

The operator was originally associated with Node Provider Carbon Twelve and responsible for 4 nodes in the es1 data center. These nodes are being transferred to Decentralized Entities Foundation, and the removal of this Node Operator entry finalizes the transition.

I voted to Adopt this proposal because:

  1. The transition of node ownership has been clearly communicated on the forum and confirmed here.
  2. Removing this Node Operator record prevents the es1 data center from exceeding the cap of 4 rewardable nodes.
  3. It ensures clean handover and alignment with the previously approved Node Provider onboarding process.

This proposal helps keep the registry accurate and reflects a clear and well-managed shift in infrastructure within the Internet Computer ecosystem.

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.