Subnet Management - 3hhby (Application)

Proposal 134485

TLDR: I’ve voted to adopt proposal 134485. Obvious decentralisation coefficients are improved (see decentralisation stats below). The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. The node being removed indeed belongs to DC CH3. However, I’m uncomfortable about adopting a proposal using this sort of evidence (given the ease with which such posts could be forged by the proposer).

I’m currently thinking about starting a discussion, and an associated motion proposal, about how to make this sort of thing more verifiable (verifiable consent from relevant parties).

Decentralisation Stats

Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 45.67 km 7010.26 km 16759.085 km
PROPOSED 242.077 km (+430.1%) 7023.062 km (+0.2%) 16759.085 km

This proposal increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience). :+1:

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 4 12 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 4 13 (+7.7%) 13 13 13 13

This proposal improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity. :+1:

Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →

Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
EXISTING 7 2 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 7 1 (-50%) 1 1 1 1
:point_up: :star_struck:

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136

The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:

Map Description
  • Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
  • Green marker represents an added node
  • Blue marker represents an unchanged node
  • Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
  • Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)

Node Changes
Action Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
Remove tav5h UP :bar_chart: Americas United States of America (the) Chicago 3 (ch3) CyrusOne MI Servers t37p3
Add er26s UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
zjcl6 DOWN :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
plofy UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Antwerp (an1) Datacenter United Allusion pgunx
hm6f7 UP :bar_chart: Americas Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
hgbum UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Operations SA pi3wm
a6t2w UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
vte5d UP :bar_chart: Asia India Greater Noida 1 (gn1) Yotta ACCUSET SOLUTIONS slaxf
lsew2 UP :bar_chart: Europe Lithuania Vilnius 1 (bt1) Baltneta Artem Horodyskyi cn25n
lmfy6 UP :bar_chart: Europe Latvia Riga 1 (rg1) DEAC Maksym Ishchenko lh42a
7h3aw UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
3ppfv UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
ocony UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
5u6dm UP :bar_chart: Americas United States of America (the) San Jose (sj2) Digital Realty BlockTech Ventures, LLC eikix

You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.

Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this

If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.

Additional good neurons to follow:

  • D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
  • Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
  • CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical topics)
  • WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)

Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.

1 Like