Reminder: Vote NO on more nodes and data centers

Governance
21

Acquisition of new hardware or hw partners as the case may be needs to be driven by metrics. In the case of IC some of the KPIs are: level of decentralization, ability to scale, and usage.

I suggest you read this: Node Provider Inflation Spiral - #175 by Accumulating.icp

What this tells me is that
a) there is a lot more nodes waiting to get online (600+ it seems?)
b) we are only able to use 1/100 of a node’s potential
c) we have sub 1% cycle usage of actual paying customer to node rewards

These are god awful statistics. We need a pause to save this network before it collapses on itself from all this inefficiency.

The “if we build it they will come” model is super risky and that seems to be the path the IC is on. We have not proven that there is yet sufficient demand coming soon for the IC, sometimes these transitions can take years longer than anticipated.

1 Like
22

Look closely in the thread you are referring and you will see i have several comments in it as well. I am aware of the inefficiency and even admit in that very thread that the inefficiency exists compounded by the current effort to decentralize. But given the recent report showing the soft target approach is 7 providers and 13 nodes from its decentralization objective then is 13 more nodes really going to take us over the edge when there are already 600+ waiting? Are these 13 nodes we need to achieve the soft target which represent approximately 1% of total nodes that much more of a burden for us to bear than we already are? Then once this decentralization effort is over we can start addressing the root of the issue which seems to be NP’s with more nodes than planned number of subnets.

1 Like