Remove 32 Node Providers

[wpb]

@infu

I did follow CodeGov for years, until it rejected Dfinity’s proposal few days ago to move nodes away from critical subnets.

@bjoernek

In our view, there is no substantial evidence to justify the offboarding of any node provider.

@infu
There is no evidence that justifies the change as stated by DFINITY in each of the proposals (135664, 135665, 135666). Doing so implies guilt and sets a bad precedent. If evidence existed of bad actors, we certainly would adopt the proposal. Each of those proposals resulted in a less safe network.

---

@infu

Instead of trying to discredit Adam and leave the network in a vulnerable state, CodeGov could have helped the NPs prove that IC is decentralized if it is already.

CodeGov did try to help. Some Node Providers even responded. It was all ignored or mocked. There are numerous examples.

@wpb

Sure, I can help you find the information by pointing you in the right direction. All Node Providers in your list own Gen-1 nodes. The work process for Gen-1 Node onboarding after 48 months can be found documented here. This work process requires that they all create two posts (in the two forum threads linked below) as well as provide signed self-declaration documents that are posted here on the internet computer wiki.

@wpb

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.

@wpb

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).

@wpb

@borovan here are recent onboarding statements from earlier this year for each of the node providers that you have listed in the OP that have active nodes in subnets. Hopefully everyone will see this an reply to your concerns before you submit proposals to remove them as Node Providers.

@wpb

As indicated @borovan, I have reached out to all of the Node Providers listed above. Hopefully some of them will join the conversation.

@wpb

What you have been able to observe about these proposals within this short time frame that causes you to recommend to your friends to reject them and why do they follow your recommendation? It could be helpful information for other community members who are actively researching these proposals and it could be helpful for DFINITY as well to know your justification.

@wpb

I would love to see you turn your power and influence into an active contributor on the serious side of ICP governance that would help advance decentralization. If nothing else, you could actually afford to pay a group of developers to actively review proposals and cast informed votes. So far, only DFINITY has been willing to offer grants for this purpose. Why don’t you collaborate with other whales and do the same in order to help protect your interests?