Hello again!
Allusion had 70 since Genesis (along with others), but they also fall under the first post at the top of this thread, so they are required to reduce to 42.
The owner of Allusion, Paul, posted here stating which DC they were offloading, and that the date was Jan 31. Therefore, they stopped earning Gen-1 rewards for all 70 nodes as of Jan 31. If they haven’t turned off the extra 42 nodes yet, that’s no issue. It takes some time to do all these things. You’ll notice that the IC isn’t using AN1 because they’re no longer getting rewards. You voted on the proposal to move subnets away from that DC because they were selling the servers.
We are still waiting on the announcement of who has purchased their excess nodes. The buyers do not have deadlines of how fast they have to get the nodes re-onboarded… transfers when you’re dealing with registering business entities and signing or transferring DC contracts can often take many weeks. (Any NP who sells nodes but the buyer wants to keep them running in the same DC to avoid any transportation costs and the work of tearing everything down and setting it all back up is having to navigate that transfer process with the DC, so you might see a lot of this sort of thing this month for a number of the NPs who were hosting more than 42 nodes since Genesis… NPs like Allusion, Blockchain Dev Laps, Rivonia, 162, etc.)
Because historically, rewards have been minted two weeks after the month’s end, all the NPs have to wait until after Feb 13 to start submitting the proposals for the new Gen-1.1 rewards, since the Feb 13 minting is the last one of their 48 months which started prior to Genesis. The chart with dates is much farther up the thread and is on the wiki… that chart was posted for the NP’s benefits to help them navigate this transition time, but you’re welcome to refer to it for understanding if you wish. You’ll see a bunch of those proposals going through in the second half of this month because we (DFINITY) are going to clean up what’s left from the pre-Genesis rewards, but the NPs have to submit the proposals to start the Gen-1.1 rewards for February (which will be covered in the March minting.)
ETA to answer your second question about if all the NPs moved:
Before we considered this question, we already knew from almost all of the Gen-1 NPs that they were not interested in incurring the expense and trouble to move nodes. Almost a year ago, for example, when we were discussing the excess nodes that we had in Europe and the US, I asked a bunch of them if they would be interested in moving their nodes to new countries to help with the decentralization. A number of them got back to me and said that they had looked into the costs, and it just wasn’t worth it. They knew that voters and DFINITY would not support a rate that would make financial sense for them to do it. Cancellation of DC contracts is VERY expensive… often tens of thousands.
In some ways, it would have been preferrable for a whole bunch of them to change countries, but as you can see with the forum posts in this thread, so far, only the new NPs who purchased from us have indicated that they will find a new country. They had no cancellation costs to deal with, and we were shutting down those DCs anyway, so that expensive cost wasn’t factored into any buying/selling agreement, like it has been (I assume) for everybody else. As you can see on this thread, all the other NPs have has said that their servers that they’re keeping aren’t moving. Most of the buyers on here so far have said they’re not moving the nodes either.
Therefore, the position that we are making this proposal is FROM that place… knowing that almost all of the Gen-1 NPs have already committed in DC contracts to remain where they are. This proposal is only if/for the few purchasers who haven’t committed/decided yet. The two who purchased from us are part of that, and I think there are maybe two others who have not annouced if they are moving the nodes. So at most, we have 4 NPs who might take advantage of that. IMO, it would be great if we can get 4 new countries, but I doubt all four will. And this isn’t “unfair” to not announce this earlier because, like I said, I had asked many of them a very long time ago if lesser decrease in rewards would incentivize them to move nodes to a new country, and everyone who got back to me said no.
ETA again… I just realized what you were asking. I suppose, with the way we have worded this, if these remaining four NPs happen to choose to move to the same country, that might be an issue, because that would be a LOT of nodes in that one country. Considering the way topology works, Sven had told me that if two NPs choose the same country, the IC can still use nodes from both NPs well to increase decentralization. Our two purchasing NPs are simultaneously looking for a country to operate out of to help with decentralization, and I don’t know if the remaining two that haven’t announced a location are. But it would be difficult to tell them that they have to communicate with each other and choose different countries. We also can’t pick one of them to choose the first country, then the second to choose the next, etc. As Sven said, even if two pick the same country, it improves decentralization nicely.
But this is definitely something that I have already recognized that somehow needs to be worked out before we open up Gen-3. NPs generally have to order equipment and understand costs months before bringing nodes online. Yet voters will need to approve their locations before they order things? So how do we solve this cart-before-the-horse problem? It seems logical that if a costs and the political climate of a particular country become attractive to NPs, then we’ll have a bunch that want to set up there. How does the NNS choose who does it? How do NPs who are making plans to submit a proposal know if other NPs are about to choose the same place? How do voters know if an NP who submits a proposal months before the nodes go online is actually going to follow through?
Hope that helps!
and I appreciate you taking the time to go through it