Reminder: Vote NO on more nodes and data centers

Just logged into the NNS and saw votes on adding more datacenters and at least 10+ more nodes.

Remembrr folks it is up to us to slow down this excessive spending on nodes and datacenter which are getting from what someone mentioned a 0.8% utilization rate presently (5000 ICP burned on cycles/mo vs 600k ICP generated to pay for nodes).

“if you build it they will come” unbridled server over-investing at data centers didn’t work for Y2K and it surely isn’t going to work now.

This network needs to earn its’ growth with actual users/apps onboarding not onboarding more cost centers.

I usually only manually vote every month or so but for the next few months I am willing to log into the NNS a few times a week and personally vote no on each and every node and datacenter expansion. If utilization (defined by ICP burned) reaches 33% of the ICP generated for nodes, I will stop. Feel free to PM me if you want one of my neuron IDs to follow.


Data centers and node addition reflect actions taken by Node providers that have already been approved. So are you suggesting the solution to the problem is that after these providers have been approved and began investing in hardware allocation that can cost them substantially that we abandon them and refuse to allow the money they spent to be utilized for the purpose it was intended?

Lets flip the script and let me ask this. If you just spent $150k building high end servers to send to data centers and suddenly the community said NO, how would you feel? Would you still support the IC? Would you suggest to other entities to become Node providers?


totally understand your point but we are also running a business here, and a business which is grossly overpaying for h/w that isn’t being used. if you want to burn your money frivolously to save someone else’s behind go ahead.

if and when this network is humming along with lots of usage and cycle buying i will bet you a $1000 steak dinner that we won’t have any issue finding hosting providers willing to say “how high?” when the NNS says “jump”

i’m sure you have heard of the golden rule…

technically they have not been approved by the NNS so who is doing this phantom approval? please do tell…

1 Like

Unlike many people I never invest anything I am not willing to completely lose. Why would I risk capital that I need elsewhere? So “burning my money” in support of our node providers or for any other reason that supports the IC was a step I was willing to take when I created an 8yr locked neuron. I invested here because I saw the future of what the internet could become decades from now. Not for immediate profitability.

1 Like

Phantom approval? Your kidding right? So now your suggesting NP’s just appear out of thin air?

Step 1: Proposal to register Node Provider < “Phantom Approval”
Step 2: Register Data Center (if needed)
Step 3: Register Node Operator of Node Provider
Step 4 Update configuration of Node Provider

So as you can see any Node provider submitting a data center, node operator, or configuration update was already approved by the NNS prior to them even being able to make these proposals.

1 Like

I’m actually voting NO on all of these…

There is a reason why these votes exist. They have not been approved by the NNS until they reach the final step… you can feel free to make up any rationale in your mind as to what you committed to when you locked up for 8 years but that doesn’t make it so for anyone else.

Perhaps you are okay with blindly spending money and that is your prerogative. However, myself and others believe this is just bad for business to scale out massively hoping that cycle buyers will just magically appear out of thin air. ICP isn’t meant to be some cash cow to be milked by hardware suppliers and data centers.

If people with your attitude end up having their way we certainly won’t be seeing the IC around “decades from now” because like any business that wants to survive and flourish it needs to follow the basics of factor costs and constraints.

And ideally not end up like Marc’s previous “cloud” investment that flopped and got sold off to EDS because it was early to the game and over invested into hardware going into a recession…

I agree with both actually. We can’t just say no to people who have invested and we can’t blindly add nodes in the same locations over and over. Suggestion to encourage the ordering of hardware should be done after the 10th step.

“Node operator record”.Which defines the number of nodes and datacenter. This can be something community can control if there is a reason to add nodes or not.

1 Like

@superduper You can’t submit Node Operator / Node reward record till you have the server set up and ready to deploy. Once you install the server you get ID’s /references to your servers which is required for the NNS proposal submission. In other words, we cant say no once the servers are on-premise and invested. So the Node allowance step is what can be the best point to say no or yes.

For your reference
Milestone four would be the best place


I never blindly invest anywhere. I watched ICP and this forum for 2 years before I created a neuron or an account. You shouldn’t associate my investment strategy as simply whimsical because it is different from many in society. Had I made too many bad decisions in life its unlikely I would be here now looking at the future of what this could be. Have I made mistakes and bad decisions in the past. Yes, of course. Do I dwell on them. No, because I am indifferent to the assets allocated. Its simply a different viewpoint of assets. To me they are a tool, nothing more, and unfortunately sometimes tools break.

1 Like

I completely agree. But the solution is not refusing every proposal relating to nodes. I can see refusing New NP proposals to put pressure on the decentralization effort and as @MalithHatananchchige pointed out even refusing current providers to increase their node allowance. So unless you become more specific on exactly what should be voted no on convincing people with “my attitude” that a sweeping no vote everywhere is the solution is going to be a hard sell.

1 Like

I am voting NO on all such proposals until we have at least a short term solution in place. Depending on when I vote my votes and followers add up to between 17k-60k votes; not much but something. Thank you all.


Totally understandable. As a named neuron that caters to retail investors I can see your position and why you take the stance you do. I simply disagree with voting no across the board on all proposals relating to nodes. I think there are better ways this could be approached like what Malith suggested above. I have no desire to break a critical part of the system by a sweeping no hoping it will make the situation better.


is there a business contract stating so? then why do these votes exist? if there isn’t then the NNS can vote whatever way.

i don’t see why the NNS would box itself in like that. it doesn’t make business sense. life and business have risk, we (neuron holders) cannot take on all the risk ourselves while node providers are guaranteed nice fat profits with 0 risk. that’s def a surefire way to create a dysfunctional system. and we can see the result of that system now where we literally cannot even burn 1% of the ICP the system has to print to support these nodes which are sitting there doing nothing but giving some people feelings of decentralization.


I too don’t understand the reasons for the final step in the NNS proposal process, but there’s a point of contention I’d like to highlight. If node allocation has already been granted and significant investments have been made in setting up the hardware, a sudden “No” at the last juncture would be detrimental. This could potentially undermine confidence in ICP, discouraging future investments.

Ethically speaking, once an allocation is green-lighted, retracting the approval seems unfair.

I propose reevaluating the decision-making at the 10th step. Instead of addressing the onboarding of NPs, we should focus on the nodes. A waiting list system could be introduced, similar to what the RNDR coin has implemented for its decentralized GPU computation platform. This approach would prioritize demand and streamline allocations. My concern stems from the topic’s title, “Vote NO on more nodes…”. The 10th step should facilitate the community’s decision on allocations for existing or new NPs.


We have stated this very thing so many times across various threads they either are not listening, do not care, or are trying to push us toward it. At this point I am honestly curious whether they have ever participated in a capital venture where their assets had to support the venture over a long term before seeing any kind of fruition.

I see so people disagreeing with your interpretation of how things work equates to “not listening” and then you proceed to insult people?

No s— some things take time… and that’s all the more reason to be prudent. Feel free to vote as you wish.

The fact is business is run by contracts and agreements; this particular business seems to be run on a cash and carry type model. So unless someone can point me to some contract any of us signed that commits us to anything besides 8 year locks and getting paid for voting feel free to conjure it out of thin air.

If there is money to be made people will show up… dw 'bout that.

i already am in the black. and been following Dominic since 2014…

My apologies if my curiosity insulted you that was not my intention. My curiosity is honest as I have also participated in failed ventures in the past and have lost assets as well. Yet never once during any part did I think that breaking the most critical part of the venture was a solution to its problems. So I am honestly curious why you do think this sweeping no is the proper solution to the problem?

Totally understand. Been there done that just not with Dominic. Which was the life lesson that taught me timing, diversification, and in my case pay attention to global events regardless of if you think they will affect you or not. lol. I can laugh about it now but trust I didnt back then and I will admit I was incredibly unhappy with the fact i utilized a large portion of my assets.