New Node Provider Proposals

ZoLee · July 10, 2025, 8:21am

Proposal #137251 — ZoLee | CodeGov

Vote: Rejected

Reason:
Missing NP NAME and document hashes from the proposal summary.

Proposals #137256 & 137257

Vote: Adopted

Reason:
The proposals are correct and in line with steps needed to clear the registry. As the nodes were taken over by NP DEF and were already removed, NP Carbon Twelve is removing NO id g3nqx used for 4 nodes in the PR1 DC and NO id gyzti used for 4 nodes in ES1 DC.

Proposal #137270

Vote: Adopted

Reason:
In line with the discussions as the final step the proposal removes NP id spp3m representing Rivonia Holdings LLC with 0 nodes.

Proposal #137271

Vote: Adopted

Reason:
In line with the discussions as the final step the proposal removes NP id wlxga representing Aksinia Stavskaya with 0 nodes.
The proposal was submitted by Known Neuron @krzysztofzelazko presumably asked by the NP, but it would be great to have a signature in the summary whenever the proposal is submitted by someone else.

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.

timk11 · July 10, 2025, 11:47am

Proposals 137312 & 137313 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Reject

These two proposals set rewards for the 2 node operator IDs controlled by node provider ParaFi Technologies NS LLC. I’ve voted to reject these proposals as there has still been no response to the earlier question as to why 9Yards Capital’s website lists ParaFi as part of its portfolio in contradiction to the assertions given elsewhere in this thread, either directly from @andy-parafi or through the planned external audit. Even though the audit is voluntary it would be appropriate for the submission of these proposals to wait until a result is available, given the discussion that has already taken place in this forum.

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 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.

andy-parafi · July 10, 2025, 7:36pm

Hello IC Community,

We have submitted two proposals for configuring rewards on 41 nodes with the Internet Computer under our Node Provider Principle:

Proposal 137313: Configure rewards for 13 nodes in the New York (ny1) datacenter
Proposal 137312: Configure rewards for 28 nodes in the Jacksonville (jv1) datacenter

There was an issue with one of the 14 nodes in ny1. We will follow up with another proposal for the final node once the issue is resolved.

Additionally, subject to the requirement of independence, ParaFi Technologies NS LLC has successfully completed its audit by the third-party auditor appointed by DFINITY. As part of the process to verify independence, the auditor’s opinion confirms ParaFi Technologies NS LLC independence [see completed audit opinion here]. For further information beyond what has already been satisfactorily completed with the audit and required of Node Operators, 9 Yards Capital holds <1% ownership in ParaFi as part of a legacy 2019 transaction, which is the reason the old ParaFi logo appears as one of 177 logos on the 9 Yards Capital website. DFINITY is already fully aware of this. Per the requirements in proposal 136573, ParaFi Technologies NS LLC listed all UBOs with >25% ownership in the Assessment of Independence, and is independent under the standards set forth by the DAO, as verified by the third-party auditor appointed by DFINITY.

We ask the community and reviewers to vote YES on the proposals linked above.

Relevant Forum Posts:

Next Steps:

Follow up with a proposal for the 14th node in NY1 as soon as the issue with the node is resolved.

Thank you for your consideration and support!

Best regards,

ParaFi Technologies NS LLC

krzysztofzelazko · July 10, 2025, 8:05pm

Proposal 137312 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

This proposal sets the rewardable_nodes count for the Node Operator mwn4q-m7agh-z77ry-lk3ee-6ndte-kkfmm-yxtb4-mfqyf-uq2e7-xqmyh-yqe of Node Provider ParaFi Technologies NS LLC to 28.

ParaFi received allowance to onboard nodes on the jv1 data center under proposal 137217, after passing the Node Provider registration in proposal 137171. The current proposal finalizes the onboarding by enabling rewards for the 28 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 (28) 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.
No irregularities have been observed in prior steps; the provider has followed official guidelines and procedures.
The Node Provider successfully completed an audit conducted by a third-party auditor. As part of the independence verification, the auditor issued an opinion confirming its independence.

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.

krzysztofzelazko · July 10, 2025, 8:16pm

Proposal 137313 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

This proposal sets the rewardable_nodes count for the Node Operator dmqux-7xfgo-xd535-6kkav-qjjnm-c7zza-g4j6g-ooctw-gdisv-zvh6z-7qe of Node Provider ParaFi Technologies NS LLC to 13.

ParaFi received allowance to onboard nodes on the ny1 data center under proposal 137216, after passing the Node Provider registration in proposal 137171. The current proposal finalizes the onboarding by enabling rewards for the 13 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 (13) 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.
No irregularities have been observed in prior steps; the provider has followed official guidelines and procedures.
The Node Provider successfully completed an audit conducted by a third-party auditor. As part of the independence verification, the auditor issued an opinion confirming its independence.

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.

WebTreeSoftwareSolut · July 10, 2025, 8:20pm

Thank you for clarifying qnd posting audit results will be voting to adopt your proposals.

Lorimer · July 10, 2025, 9:37pm

Thanks for getting around to posting this @andy-parafi. I think this is an interesting case study as the first example of a completed NP audit from the pilot programme. Please know that my following comments are intended to help ensure the IC establishes sufficiently robust processes for ‘deterministic decentralisation’, and are not about criticising you or the auditor.

I can’t help questioning the integrity of this audit and the process surrounding it, for several reasons.

This is in contrast with what the auditor wrote up in her work.

Maria Fedak, Auditor at JayBee

According to the documentation provided, including the shareholder structure and interview with the company’s controlling member and Partner, it has been established that ParaFi Technologies NS LLC is wholly owned by ParaFi Technologies LLC.Furthermore, no ownership or controlling relationship has been identified between Rivonia Holdings LLC or 9Yards Capital and ParaFi Technologies LLC or ParaFi Technologies NS LLC.

The depth of the auditor’s review appears to be limited to whatever information they were supplied by the NP. Given this, I find myself asking what audits of this sort are actually achieving.

At the company’s request, the exact ownership percentages will not be disclosed

For arguments sake, how can the community have confidence that 9 Yards has <1% ownership. It grew from 0% after the community pushed back on the original information presented (the auditor doesn’t appear to have done this). It’s not clear that it wouldn’t grow again with a thorough audit.

I’m not saying I expect that to be the case. But I am expressing concerns that I think there is still something lacking in this process. If this same process were applied to a well organised bad actor, would this process be robust enough to keep the IC safe?

louisevelayo · July 11, 2025, 6:50am

Proposal #137312 — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: ADOPT
Review
This proposal removes increases the type1.1 rewardable nodes of the node operator with ID mwn4q from 0 to 28.

node_allowance=0 in ic-admin. This means the NP has onboarded all the nodes they are permitted to on this site
At the time of this review, all nodes in JV1 are in a healthy state on the IC Public Dashbaord
Correct (type1.1) reward type was used

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.

louisevelayo · July 11, 2025, 6:52am

Proposal #137313 — Louise | Aviate Labs
Vote: ADOPT
Review
This proposal removes increases the type1.1 rewardable nodes of the node operator with ID dmqux from 0 to 13.

node_allowance=1 in ic-admin. This means the NP has onboarded all but 1 node, which they are permitted to on this site
At the time of this review, all nodes in NY1 are in a healthy state on the IC Public Dashbaord
Correct (type1.1) reward type was used

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.

WebTreeSoftwareSolut · July 11, 2025, 12:38pm

I agree with your sentiment, however, @andy-parafi has provided at this point all of the required documentation.

In addition, in his latest response he provided answers to community concerns which explain the discrepancies that were noted with earlier comments.

Everything he said is logically consistent with what I can see publicly.

There is no level of invasive auditing that will accomplish anything other than pain for entities with a less powerful legal department.

Perhaps a more important standard to focus on going forward is to ensure that NP sales are public, and all interested parties have a chance to compete.

From my point of view parafi and rivonia ubos are friends who do business cooperatively. But that is not against the established rules. And is nothing in the rules that says they cant sell privately to who they want for whatever reason they want.

Thyassa · July 11, 2025, 12:57pm

This should be pretty simple for everyone to agree to. Surely the seller would like to get the best price possible, so I don’t see why anybody would not agree to this.

Lorimer · July 11, 2025, 1:30pm

My comments are using ParaFi’s situation as a case study, which does reveal things that are lacking in the process. Public sales are certainly an improvement, but not tangibly if the seller has the final say about who the nodes go to (particularly if the actual transfer is managed privately).

Remember that the IC needs the claim of ‘deterministic decentralisation’ to hold water. Claims of legal, financial and ownership independence need to be provable. If it’s not transparent you have to trust auditors, and as pointed out you can’t.

I make the claim that ‘ownership privacy’ and ‘deterministic decentralisation’ are diametrically opposed concepts, and one of these claims needs to be dropped.

Note that once subnet membership shuffling takes place automatically by the protocol, I don’t believe there’s a fundamental reason that ‘ownership transparency’ has to equate to ‘subnet membership transparency’ (addressing violent coercion as an attack vector).

WebTreeSoftwareSolut · July 11, 2025, 3:09pm

My concern is not so much that you cant trust the auditor, but the fact that large players with armies of lawyers and legal experts will be well equipped to handle a more invasive auditory process.

Smaller players will not. And it will be discouraging and possibly a hurdle for them.

Meaning the process of a increasingly invasive audit could actually have the effect of centralizing the protocol more, which is not the intention.

The information and statements provided here in my opinion is sufficient. And as @louisevelayo pointed out, there are plans for punishing any nps that are found to be not acting appropriately in the future.

Given parafis track record of good performance across multiple chains, i see no reason to believe they have any intention to not continue to do the same for Internet Computer.

Just my 2 cents.

Lorimer · July 11, 2025, 3:45pm

Intentional concealment of the type you’re describing is easy to detect (structures and procedures that only serve to conceal), and if there are cases where it may not, I would argue that the inability to undertake a confident audit is reason enough to conclude the NP (in their current corporate form) is not suitable for the requirements of the internet computer.

When you boil it down, it comes down to whether ‘deterministic decentralisation’ is a feature of the IC or not. If it’s not, all other security assumptions are moot. In my eyes it’s really that simple. The IC is unlike any other network (that I’m aware of) in this respect. Better to address it rather than sweep it under the rug until it’s practically too late.

This is the IC’s greatest strength (if you can actually achieve and maintain deterministic decentralisation that holds up to scrutiny). There’s not really anything sensible to offer if this core foundation isn’t there.

Icswitch · July 11, 2025, 4:05pm

Hello ICP Community,

As you can see, I have prepared my declaration documents. After my third proposal was rejected, I carefully followed the community’s feedback and included the SHA256 checksums for each declaration file linked in the IC Wiki. I have now submitted my fourth proposal to become a node provider. My self-introduction and detailed declaration materials are included in the proposal link. I sincerely welcome your support and guidance — thank you once again!
https://dashboard.internetcomputer.org/proposal/137343

krzysztofzelazko · July 11, 2025, 4:18pm

Proposal 137343 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:

A proper self-introduction has been posted on the forum post.
The self-declaration and proof of identity documents have been uploaded to the Internet Computer Wiki.
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.

alexu · July 11, 2025, 4:41pm

Thanks for your feedback, @Lorimer ! While no audit process is flawless, I think that dismissing it entirely risks undermining the very effort that is going into them to improve the network decentralization and its integrity. Constructive critique is always welcome, we are happy to discuss specific improvements now that we started to see first results. A blanket rejection, like in the quote, may not help move the conversation forward productively.

In this particular case, both statements by the auditor and ParaFi were correct and non-contradictory, since ParaFi is a group of companies and the auditors made statements about ParaFi Technologies NS LLC and ParaFi Technologies LLC. AFAIU, the auditors were also able to inspect the corporate structure of ParaFi to confirm the UBOs that were supplied in the public section of Independence Assessment.

Lorimer · July 11, 2025, 4:55pm

You can’t make the first claim. You can only make the second. Why would they be contradictory when the audit was based on material supplied by the NP?

I understand why this sounds undesirable but it’s a logical fallacy. Doing the opposite is worse in my opinion, and we should all be voting according to our convictions (particularly if you can reason about them and defend their substance). We shouldn’t be judging security-critical things based on the effort that went in to them, but on their merit (in terms of what can be demonstrated).

I’ve raised concerns about what has been demonstrated. I tried to do it nicely. I may not have succeeded, I’m not feeling great today (sorry). I’ll try to be nicer in future posts of that sort. Recommendations about how best to conduct myself are welcome. I only want what’s best for the IC (taking a long-term view).

Lorimer · July 11, 2025, 5:01pm

If I were feeling better I would also challenge the assumption that this audit is FATF compliant (accounting for and abiding by the standards layed out in that model). Based on my prior reading of FAFT documentation, something looks off to me with that audit.

I’m sure it’ll occur to me over the weekend or next week when I’m feeling better. In the meantime, if you could confirm that the audit is expected to have adhered to all FATF recommendations for conducting this sort of inspection (and that the auditor makes this claim / has confirmed it), that would be great

WebTreeSoftwareSolut · July 11, 2025, 6:07pm

Keep doing what youre doing your efforts are much appreciated.

We wont always agree on everything thats what decentralization is all about. We need more voices like yours.

Topic		Replies	Views
The State and Direction of Decentralization & Nodes on the Internet Computer Roadmap	229	33649	May 3, 2024
Remove 32 Node Providers General	109	2614	March 12, 2025
Proposal to become a Node Provider Rivram Inc General	11	1501	January 10, 2024
Technical Working Group: Node Providers Roadmap community-consideration	79	3744	July 15, 2025
SYBILing nodes! 😱 Exploiting IC Network... Community Attention Required! NNS Governance nns , Node-admin , Subnet-management	148	4062	May 7, 2025

New Node Provider Proposals

Proposal #137251 — ZoLee | CodeGov

Proposals #137256 & 137257

Proposal #137270

Proposal #137271

Proposals 137312 & 137313 | Tim - CodeGov

Proposal 137312 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

Proposal 137313 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

Proposal 137343 Review | Krzysztof Żelazko - ICP Hub Poland

Related topics