Hey @borovan, I really appreciate the thoughtful analysis on this. It’s clear that everyone here is aligned on wanting ICP to succeed without the risk of a single entity gaining too much control or causing harm through dumping.
That being said, I noticed there are about 32 proposals related to node provider removals. As a representative of CO DELTA, we generally don’t participate in node governance decisions, but when it comes to active nodes on subnets, we have a responsibility to review the issue carefully.
To clarify, here’s how the onboarding and offboarding process works:
Onboarding:
- Node provider record
- Datacenter proposal
- Node allowance proposal
- Node reward proposal
Now, when it comes to offboarding, we can’t just submit a proposal to remove active nodes—technically, these would be automatically rejected. If it were that easy, someone with a large following could simply spam proposals to take ICP down. This is exactly why the @DRE-Team is responsible for handling the removal of active nodes on subnets.
I suggest we follow the correct procedure: first, gather all necessary evidence and submit a motion proposal. ICP has independent reviewers—including CO DELTA, CodeGov, and Aviata Labs—to prevent mistakes and ensure due diligence.
I’ve worked with many teams in crypto, and DFINITY is one of the most methodical when it comes to handling concerns like this. I have no doubt they’ll help us find the right solution.
@borovan, I understand your concerns.