Remove 32 Node Providers

[borovan]

Weird that you focused on that one out of all 37 proposals. The summary was irrelevant, the title and the URL contained all the information you needed.

[JimmySteve]

Same here. Can someone from Dfinity investigate this and that the user who submitted all of these proposal’s claim is true? I’m very new to this community, I don’t know how a process like that would get started.

[borovan]

Uh oh, add 43rd Big Idea Films and Bigger Capital to the list!

And Mary Ren, Richard Ma, Blockchain Development Labs, Giant Leaf LLC, BlockTech Ventures LLC.

They’ll all be doing time with Sally Decker in the state penitentiary

[jonit]

Hope I’m not speaking out of turn. I can’t know if “Borovan” is right about this as I don’t have the time of knowledge base to research properly, but Its is known that their have been a few takeover attacks on ICP over the years and its known who some of the people are.
Its defiantly worth looking at to make sure nothing is up.
It quite possible that some of these “insiders” have also been continually shorting ICP over the last 4 years.

[timk11]

Proposals 135704, 135705, 135706, 135707, 135708, 135709, 135710, 135711, 135712, 135713, 135714, 135715, 135716, 135717, 135718, 135719, 135720, 135721, 135722, 135723, 135724, 135725, 135726, 135727, 135728, 135729, 135730, 135731, 135732, 135733, 135734, 135735, 135736, 135737 & 135738 | Tim - CodeGov

Voted to reject this set of proposals. Funded reviewers are obliged to vote on and post a review for every proposal in the categories for which they are funded, hence the very long heading for this post.

This set of proposals, if executed, would result in at least 9 subnets having a node removed without any replacements.

I would also prefer to see a general approach developed and agreed on through an NNS vote to address concerns around potentially colluding node providers, rather than removing individual node providers without their consent and without an agreed process in place to handle this. Some worthwhile discussions on this have already started up elsewhere in the forum. The suggested clustering approach is a good start but I think it needs to be agreed upon before being put into effect. A reasonable alternative could be to a submit a Governance proposal to recognise a specific group of NPs as a cluster for this purpose. These need not even be NPs thought to be colluding, Sybiling or “fake”, but even just NPs thought to be too closely associated to be on the same subnet. The DRE tool could then be used to check the decentralisation impact of various changes and to put them forward as Subnet Management proposals. If some other system-wide solution, whether an automated process or something involving firmer penalties, were put to a vote and approved then this would also give us something to work with. However, this would need to account for what is technically feasible and fair in terms of presumptions of guilt or innocence.

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 & Neurons’ 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 decentralisation 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.

[Jordan_xx]

Imagine voting against it

Literally destroying IC even more

[wpb]

@Jordan_xx

Imagine voting against it

@Jordan_xx

Literally destroying IC even more

Imagine 1 node provider decides to pull the plug on their node machines because the business risk to be a Node Provider on ICP is too great. They can easily move their assets to Solana or another blockchain with less risk because there is no contract obligating them to stay with ICP. They decide that 1 paranoid conspiracy theorist with a large stake and with connections at the highest levels at DFINITY is able to pull the rug out from under their legitimate business and defames their character while causing them financial harm without proof, without cause, and without any expertise. The risk is just too great, so why wouldn’t they leave on their own terms instead of suddenly getting rugged?

Then imagine a 2nd node provider decides to pull the plug because they also think the risk is too great. Then a 3rd and a 4th and a 5th. When do the dominos fall?

At what point does crypto media pick up on the story? At what point do investors lose confidence? At what point does mainstream media pick up on the story? At what point are the bags that Adam thinks he is protecting vanish? At what point does the dream of the internet computer die because everyone loses confidence when Adam proves how easy it can be to fuck up our subnets?

Every single allegation presented so far and every single piece of evidence presented so far has been weak and easily explainable, sometimes with just 5 minutes of research by someone who knows where to look. We should not have a vigilante whale submitting proposals that actually make changes to the network and have the potential to cause harm. At best, he should present his evidence to DFINITY and give them time to explain what they know.

The irony is that the harm that Adam has the potential to cause has a much higher probability of actually occurring than the probability of this supposed subnet takeover via node provider collusion from actually occurring. The real threat to ICP is what is happening with these Participant Management proposals. It would be much better to let people who know what they are doing perform investigations and handle these changes.

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.

[MalithHatananchchige]

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.

[wpb]

There is no other logical place to post this information since no forum topic was created or linked in the proposals. However, since Adam (@borovan) submitted two Motion proposals (135739 and 135740) yesterday during his Participant Management proposal spree (135704 through 135738), which is the subject of this forum thread, I will go ahead and post the vote results of the Motion proposals for CodeGov and Synapse here. While the Participant Management proposals would actually make a change to the network if they pass, these Motion proposals will cause no harm to the network other than shake investor confidence.

Both the CodeGov and Synapse known neurons have voted to REJECT Motion proposals 135739 and 135740. Not a single Followee for either known neuron voted to adopt these proposals so far.

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.

[aligatorr89]

On behalf of CO.DELTA neuron 33138099823745946, we compiled couple of opinions. Generally we agree with @wpb and CodeGov team. We do not yet actively handle Participant management topic, but rather follow D-QUORUM which follows CodeGov and Dfinity and Aviate Labs.

First of all there are 5 misspelled provider names in this forum post:

• Brener, Inc → Brener, Inc.
• Michel Guerra → Mitchel Guerra
• Mostly Wholesome, Inc → Mostly Wholesome, Inc.
• Phillippe Chapparone → Philippe Chapparone
• Mostly Wholesome, Inc → Mostly Wholesome, Inc.

Secondly BLP22 was not included in the initial list yet proposal to remove was added.

And as last, node provider MI Servers has 7 active nodes in subnets
BLP22, LLC has 2 active nodes in subnets

We strongly suggest community to imediatelly reject proposals 135718 and 135737

NNS Dapp

NNS Dapp

For other proposals, providers do not have any nodes (not even offline) in the network. But as @MalithHatananchchige pointed out above Remove 32 Node Providers - #34 by MalithHatananchchige , it requires more discussion

[borovan]

@wpb

Every single allegation presented so far and every single piece of evidence presented so far has been weak and easily explainable, sometimes with just 5 minutes of research by someone who knows where to look.

Dude, 42 accounts all deposit directly into Coinbase. There is no record of any of these people or companies on the internet. No ID, no due diligence. And the majority of them received ICP from the same wallet.

Are you complicit or just playing dumb?

[wpb]

@borovan

Dude, 42 accounts all deposit directly into Coinbase. There is no record of any of these people or companies on the internet. No ID, no due diligence. And the majority of them received ICP from the same wallet.

@borovan

Are you complicit

As I told you in our DM on OpenChat yesterday, being complicit would mean that I see you make false statements and accusations and I don’t say anything when I know them to be false because I’ve done the research and I know where to look for information. I’ve already provided you with an explanation which you seem to have ignored and have not investigated. Why don’t you just send each of them an email asking for clarification since their email was stored on the blockchain during their original onboarding. It doesn’t appear that you are draining the swamp here. It appears that you are at risk of shaking node provider confidence, which by extension will shake investor confidence.

@wpb

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.

@wpb

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.

@wpb

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?

@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). Have you considered emailing any of them to learn more about their past and current involvement with the internet computer as a node provider?

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.

[wpb]

@borovan

• Rachel Dymecki
• Krishna Sriram (manual sweeping but still linked to same accounts, Mar 2022 etc.)
• BLP22, exact same pattern, linked to megawhale genesis
• IC Pros - linked to the account 62dd3, no ID, although hosting in Zurich
• Bigger Capital - linked to so many of the dodgy whale addresses
• 43rd Big Idea Films - same pattern, march 2022
• Richard Ma - march 2022, linked to whale
• Blockchain Development Labs - same company as Richard Ma, same deposit addresses, linked to whale
• Mary Ren - same group as BDL/Richard Ma
• Giant Leaf LLC - this should have been part of the original 32 I missed it
• Fidgitville Ventures LLC - exact same pattern, linked to multiple whale accounts

Out of the Node Providers that you have added to your list in the OP, the NPs below have active nodes which are deployed in subnets (in addition to MI Servers, which was on your original list (proposal 135718). Removing these nodes providers would be detrimental to the network if a proposal you submit were to pass @borovan.

• BLP22: 14 nodes, 2 subnets - proposal 135737
• Bigger Capital: 28 nodes, 1 subnet
• 43rd Bid Idea Films: 14 nodes, 2 subnets
• Blockchain Development Labs: 42 nodes, 33 subnets
• Giant Leaf LLC: 42 nodes, 8 subnets

Since you do not appear to be interested performing due diligence and reaching out to these node providers before submitting proposals @borovan, I will reach out to them myself and let them know that they are one of your targets. Perhaps some or all of them will respond.

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

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]

Are these 32 Node Providers in the room with us right now?

[Jdcv97]

@wpb

As I told you in our DM on OpenChat yesterday, being complicit would mean that I see you make false statements and accusations and I don’t say anything when I know them to be false because I’ve done the research and I know where to look for information. I’ve already provided you with an explanation which you seem to have ignored and have not investigated. Why don’t you just send each of them an email asking for clarification since their email was stored on the blockchain during their original onboarding. It doesn’t appear that you are draining the swamp here. It appears that you are at risk of shaking node provider confidence, which by extension will shake investor confidence.

Come on man, do you really think this will work at scale? I Don’t know if @Leadership never thought about this, but bad actors will have more and more ways to fake KYC data.

I live in South America, Colombia, I lived in Argentina too, and I know how easy is to fake bank accounts data, fake ID, fake any documents that are currently asked on our KYC to become a node Provider.

Asking @borovan to go and ask for additional information that can also be faked it’s stupid and doesn’t solve this issue from the root, do you think your solution works at scale? How do we plan to
Validate if is real each KYC when this network is running globally, hosting millions of software and users, and millions of subnets?

This issue has to get a REAL solution NOW @dominicwilliams deterministic decentralization just works if you think everyone is a good actor, but reality is we lived in a world full of bad actors, how are we
Solving node providers collusion, validation of node providers KYC.

I think node shuffling could be, but I think the one that solves this “anonymity “ is having ICA in charge of recruiting this node providers in person, I mean to onboard this node providers they have to present itself in person, this association will have to take their biometrics, scan their eyes, fingerprints, and ask them to sign in person a contract where they guarantee that they are the person of the identity on the node provider KYC, and that this identity matches with the person doing the biometrics. @Jan @bjoern @samuelburri

We gotta detect where is the potential threat here, I don’t see it to much on node collusion if the nodes have real ID’s, I see a HUGE threat on the validation process of the IDENTITY of this node providers, because there’s no real solution to validate identity or bank documentation presented on the KYC process and if it matches or not the real identity of the person trying to apply.

I used to feel save having my money on ICP but now o think i will move my fund to ETH.

[Jdcv97]

This is not the solution, you have to think bigger and provide solutions that work at scale, not solving the everyday issue.

I have a huge stake on this network too, and this is a huge concern that seems small stakes won’t take seriously.

[wpb]

I agree with most of your comments, but you are also changing the subject to what we should be talking about instead of having to deal with a series of proposals submitted by Adam that can do more harm than good.

If someone is going to submit proposals that will actually change our established subnets and node providers, and DFINITY has already implemented subnet changes based on weak information that they know is not credible, then I see major risk to all of these proposals. I fully expect the person submitting the proposals to know what they are doing and to perform due diligence. Adam proceeded with his current proposals based on incomplete information and no known confirmation or agreement that there is any foul play. In fact, there is an explanation that probably shows that his allegations are false, which I provided above.

I’m concerned about due process and what Adam is doing is not healthy for our network.

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.

[Jordan_xx]

No its just one person

[borovan]

Are they in the room though? MAKE AN ASSESSMENT

[wpb]

@Jdcv97

This is not the solution, you have to think bigger and provide solutions that work at scale, not solving the everyday issue.

I invite you to join the conversation that actually matters on this topic and is well aligned with your thoughts. I think you will find that I have expressed many thoughts and solutions that work at scale. Many others have as well.

This thread and series of proposals is an everyday issue for me because CodeGov is responsible for reviewing and voting on all of these proposals that Adam is submitting. We cannot just ignore them like everyone else. This is an regrettable distraction. @borovan has been invited to participate as well, but so far he has his head buried in his spreadsheet instead of focusing on what matters.

SYBILing nodes! Exploiting IC Network... Community Attention Required!

To try to be constructive here… it’s certainly a big concern for me as well @Lorimer. I wanted to share that I do think that there is a way to limit the risk. Steps would be: somehow agree, community-wide, which providers might be linked; possibly through an NNS vote, or maybe there is some other more efficient way we can use the this information in the DRE tooling to maximally decentralize nodes considering the potential links, as this is currently done with Provider, DC, Country, etc. We cou…

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.