Add him to the list Adam
âChange the world via decentralizationâ? Have you read that this is a requirement to be a node provider? Please do point me to where I can find that requirement.
1 Like
This thread might save the Internet Computer. We really needed this. 
1 Like
2 Likes
I believe itâs the other way around. Since launch, weâve faced criticism for low security and decentralization. But now, the entire market is down.
It is probably true that some NP have too many nodes, while there are also many honest NPs. With current procedures, itâs really hard (to impossible) to determine what percentage falls into each category.
3 Likes
I was kidding by the wayâŚthat trend is the bitcoin effect. Seriously though, I donât think the low security criticisms are accurate at all, but I do agree that there is a long way to go on the decentralization side. Thatâs how it should be in my opinionâŚprobably a 20 year transition or more.
Determining and achieving the optimal federated blockchain decentralization model is a huge part of our journey. IMO data in decentralized and known location is still a key differentiator in the ever expanding L1 universe.
IMO as traditional industries, governments, orgs etc. launch decentralized solutions not all of them will be able to use blockchains with unknown nodes in unknown locations. For regulatory, compliance, cultural and other reasons the Federated model could be the best solution. For example National AI networks, and under FINRA and HIPPA regulations in the US, the data is suppose to be in knowable locations. Our subnet model could be an ideal solution for these types of use cases.
I mentioned this at the NP summit in Zurich in May and now that we should have some regulatory clarity in the US, I think it is an ideal time to develop the narrative.
3 Likes
I agree. Fortunately, the internet computer has already taken a step in that direction. We now have a Swiss subnet. Iâm sure more of these national level subnets will be wanted in the relatively near future for the reasons you describe.
1 Like
Yes the Swiss subnet is an awesome start. We can almost do it for the US now. I saw that someone got a deepseek model running on icp. We could launch a web3 / Sovereign specific AI instance.
1 Like
We certainly have enough US based nodes on standby right now due to the topology requirements. It would be nice to see them put to good use in this way. I believe there is a plan to add a lot more subnets this year. I donât recall if this use case was on the list, but Iâm sure it could be if someone were to make the case for it.
1 Like
There is a lot happening right now in DC with crypto, In a few months there will be rules and opportunities. We really are the only ones who can pitch this model. It might be a good time to increase our presence in the US.
1 Like
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 | Louise - Aviate Labs
Vote: REJECT
Review:
Some of the NPs mentioned have nodes active in a subnet. Even for those who do not have any nodes, I believe a motion proposal should be submitted first. @MalithHatananchchige provides good reasoning for this.
About Aviate Labs
Aviate Labs is a team dedicated to supporting node providers since 2020. Our mission is to make high-performance infrastructure management on the Internet Computer (ICP) as seamless as possible, while adhering to the principles of decentralization.
We are known for our contributions to the ecosystem, including the go-agent and developer work packages on GitHub, as well as the Node Monitor tool, which alerts Node Providers as soon as any of their nodes go down.
In the NNS, Louise reviews and votes independently on âNode Adminâ and âParticipant Managementâ proposals on behalf of the Aviate Labs Neuron.
The Aviate Labs known neuron is configured to follow Louise for these topics and other trusted entities for broader proposals. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee, committed to voting on every proposal and supporting decentralization within the ICP ecosystem.
2 Likes
No, I mean 46 node providers who all direct deposit into Coinbase and never touch ICP or Neurons, none of which have any online presence. Suuuure.
Youâre just being paid by that group Wenzel.
2 Likes
Haha, there must be some really spicy telegram chats going on now behind closed doors.
1 Like
I keep asking myself why do @borovan and @Jordan_xx keep coming unhinged when Iâve been so helpful explaining their evidence. Then I realized itâsâŚ
2 Likes
We fully support the ICP communityâs commitment to decentralization and integrity. Recently, questions have been raised about certain node providers, including Blockchain Development Labs (BDL). We want to clarify that BDLâs operations have always complied with the rules and guidelines set forth by DFINITY and the NNS. We have participated in the node onboarding and turnover process and welcome constructive discussions on further strengthening node provider governance. However, any allegations of wrongdoing against BDL are incorrect.
For full transparency, we invite the community to review our Node Provider Declaration page, Blockchain Development Labs Inc - Internet Computer Wiki where you may verify the following:
- Blockchain Development Labsâ Official Attestation of Conduct.
- Public Visibility of Corporate Identity.
- Alignment with NNS Governance Motion and Decision to set the 42-node limit for Gen 1 Provider.
- Verified decentralization efforts as a Generation 1 Node Provider, including reducing our node count from 70 to 42
BDL is a reliable operator, and proudly supporting 33 active subnets.
Thank you,
The BDL Team.
1 Like
because itâs⌠OLD GREGG
I wouldnât mind an explanation of that one. Sounds like an insider joke. Makes me wonder if thereâs some spicy telegram chat group going on behind closed doors. 
No just dragginz discord
Also
2 Likes
From DFINITYâs perspective, there are four different cases of node providers covered in the proposals. These cases deserve to be discussed separately.
- Node providers that contributed nodes to the network but have stopped doing so after the initial 4-year period. These node providers were contributing relatively few nodes, between 1 and 7 nodes each, all located in data centers in the US. They were all active from around the time of the networkâs launch, and received regular rewards in line with other node providers from that time. As initially agreed prior to launch, the nodes stopped receiving rewards after a 4-year period. As far as we are aware, none of these node providers have expressed interest in contributing to the network going forward. We thus think that it is appropriate to remove the node provider records. This group of node providers relates to proposals: 135704, 135705, 135706, 135707, 135708, 135710, 135711, 135712, 135713, 135714, 135716, 135719, 135720, 135722, 135723, 135725, 135726, 135727, 135728, 135729, 135730, 135732, 135733, 134734, 134735.
- Node providers that contributed nodes which were never used on the network. This group of node providers bought nodes and deployed them to data centers according to a specification provided by DFINITY prior to the launch of ICP. Those nodes were planned to serve as ICP boundary nodes. However, it turned out that the specifications that DFINITY had provided resulted in the nodes not being fit for purpose. When this was realized, DFINITY decided to take responsibility and compensated the node providers for the missed rewards from the foundation endowment. When you see transactions originating in genesis neurons and transferring ICP tokens to this group of node providers, those transactions are likely related to this compensation. As above, we are not aware of any node provider in this group expressing interest in contributing to the network going forward, thus we think it is appropriate to remove them as well. This group of node providers relates to proposals: 135706, 135708, 135709, 135711, 135715, 135717, 135719, 135721, 135722, 135724, 135725, 135726, 135731, 134736.
- Node providers that contribute nodes that are still active on the network. These node providers have been active since around launch, but different from the above ones, they still actively contribute capacity to the network. The node providers have followed all processes set by the community, and thus we do not see any reason to remove them from the network. This group of node providers relates to proposals: 135718, 137737.
- A test node provider record that was created during testing of the node provider onboarding process. This node provider was not used in production after the initial test phase and can thus be removed. This relates to proposal: 135738.
There are a few additional node providers that belong to the same groups 1 and 2 from above. For consistency, DFINITY will create proposals for removing those as well in the next few days.
In summary: DFINITY will reject proposals 135718 and 135737, as the node providers âMI Serversâ and âBLP22â are actively contributing to the network in line with all standards set by the community. DFINITY will adopt the other proposals, since none of the node providers referenced in those adheres to the standards (e.g., posting a self-declaration) set by the community.
13 Likes