Subnet Management - 3hhby (Application)

Proposal 136378 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR: This proposal claims to replace an offline node with a healthy node. However the node it wants to swap in is also offline according to the IC API (see table below).

As a side note, I was under the impression that there were also unanswered questions around the node provider that this proposal aims to swap in.

Country Discrepancies (2)

These discrepancies are likely to be a result of inaccurate ipinfo.io. This is an area of improvement that I’m working on…

Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
hm6f7 Toronto 2 Canada United States of America (the)
6euda Douglas 2 Isle of Man United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
Decentralisation Stats

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

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 259.235 km 7465.599 km 16347.356 km
PROPOSED 259.235 km 7163.203 km (-4.1%) 17077.023 km (+4.5%)

This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience). :-1:

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 4 13 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 4 13 13 13 13 13

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 6 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 7 (+16.66%) 1 1 1 1 1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 135700

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)

  • Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.

Node Changes
Action Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
Remove po5od DOWN :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Pindar Technology Limited vzsx4
Add 6euda DOWN :bar_chart: Europe Isle of Man Douglas 2 (im2) Continent8 Zarety LLC ylbc3
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
zjcl6 UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
hm6f7 UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
hgbum UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung 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
qn5jg UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
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: North America United States of America (the) San Jose (sj2) Digital Realty BlockTech Ventures, LLC eikix


You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.

CO.DELTA △

We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:

  • Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
  • Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
  • Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.

Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.


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.

4 Likes