There are 32 node providers that were all created in June or July 2021, or March 2022. They all use a Coinbase deposit account as the reward principal, making it much easier for one person to manage multiple node providers.
Additionally, these accounts are connected to genesis neurons totaling over 30 million ICP. Feel free to conduct your own due diligence on the Internet Computer dashboard. Here’s a good place to start:
Bloke down the pub told me. Its Coinbase, I can’t even be bothered to google it or even send you the lmgtfy link. It’s got 256k transactions either it’s some crazy power user or an exchange.
Coinbase deposit account dont have principal, only ICP deposit address. Coinbase was main exchange where ICP was traded, so US based node providers sold and will sell on that exchange. This is why almost all deposits end up there.
Fine, sure, but why would a Node Provider set their reward address directly into Coinbase?
There’s been a lot of issues in the past with direct deposit, remember all the warnings “please make sure this deposit is not from a smart contact” with Ethereum. Also, why not an account that isn’t exchange controlled.
It’s a moot point. The majority of these accounts
a) have no nodes
b) are linked to 36 million ICP minted in genesis
c) are completely unknown to anybody in the IC space
Hey @borovan are you aware that many of these node providers were onboarded with Participant Management proposals that included their email addresses? Here is a link to a filtered list of proposals on the dashboard (just scroll to the bottom and look for the names). Have you considered emailing any of them to learn more about their past and current involvement with the internet computer as a node provider?
Are you also aware that every one of these node providers have 0 nodes in 0 subnets except for MI Server, who has 39 nodes in 7 subnets and BLP22, who has 14 nodes in 2 subnets? I don’t know why these folks with 0 nodes are still listed on the dashboard as a node provider, but they are not active. After a spot check of a dozen of them, it appears that they are all from the AT1, TP1, SJ1, and FM1 data centers. DFINITY owned the node machines and these folks were operating them under a private agreement made prior to Genesis for 48 months, which ended Nov 30, 2024. We need DFINITY to clarify if it is ok to remove these node providers. It seems likely that they should be removed, but I don’t think this counts as you draining the swamp. It seems more likely that the swamp has already been drained and there is just a little cleanup left.
My big concerns is MI Server and BLP22. Those are definitely active. I’d like to see your evidence that MI Server and BLP22 should be removed. Why are you picking them out when they are so different that all the rest?
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, 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.
@borovan if you are going to go around submitting Participant Management proposals to remove node providers that you suspect as bad actors, then perhaps you should at least read this forum thread in detail. It has a lot of history of the changes that have happened over the last 6 months. You need to know this information in detail before you wreck something and you need to consult with DFINITY or someone who knows what they are doing. If you are so worried about your massive stake in the internet computer, then please let the people who know what they are doing make these proposals. I know my stake is a lot smaller than yours, but it’s large enough that I care about these subnets and node providers and I don’t want you to mess anything up. I also don’t want to see you start a massive panic in the market for ICP because you are making it look like a cluster fuck and creating confusion when the reality is that there is nothing wrong.
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, 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.
I could be fuzzy on details below, but there are people at DFINITY that know the history. At Genesis, the node providers were organized a lot differently than they are today. The AT1, TP1, SJ1, and FM1 data centers had special arrangements that went something along the lines of:
DFINITY owns the node machines
a second party owns the storage drives
a third party owns the data center contract
a fourth party collect the payout
These were special contracts that were in effect for the first 4 years. This probably explains a lot of your observations in your spreadsheet.
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, 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.
I will be voting against these proposals until concrete evidence is presented demonstrating collusion between these node providers or proving they are controlled by a single entity.
Hey everyone. If you are have any inclination to change your Followee selection for the NNS, then I’d like to recommend that you check out CodeGov (neuron ID 2649066124191664356). Our website is codegov.org where you can always find a list of all our voting members on every topic. The primary objective of CodeGov neurons is to advance decentralization by putting people with the right skill set in a position to actively cast credible, informed, and reliable votes for every proposal. You are welcome to follow us on any one or all proposal topics. We will not pencil whip our votes and we will review every proposal through an objective lens. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
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, 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.
This is what caused me the most concern. I happened to be online voting at the time this wave of proposals started, and noticed that it was already just below the passing threshhold despite being minutes old.
I forgot which proposal number it was, but the proposal summary was literally just “This is an Iranian name”. The way these proposals are laid out in ICP is very reminiscant of trolls on Reddit.
Internet Computer Dashboard - Account Overview