Subnet Management - 4zbus (Application)

[LaCosta]

Proposal 135992 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

The proposal replaces a node with high failure rate on subnet 4zbus:
inconsistent node kwict Dashboard Status: Active with node bqplp Dashboard Status: Awaiting.

Although the average failure rate of this node being 7% sitting just below the 10% threshold used for reward reduction, over the past days the node has been inconsistent in it’s performance with some days having a failure rate of up to 41% as can be checked in the Node Provider Rewards

There is no impact in the overall decentralization across all features.

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.

[Lorimer]

Proposal 135992 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Replaces an online node (that has had unstable performance recently) with an unassigned node. This also improves decentralisation in terms of the average distance between nodes, and clustering withing continents.

Country Discrepancies (2)

@Lorimer

Hi @Gabriel_Rodriguez, could you clarify/confirm the location of this node please?

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
2h6dm	Toronto 2	Canada	United States of America (the)
najnj	Brussels 2	Belgium	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	382.312 km	5867.807 km	16024.773 km
PROPOSED	477.108 km (+24.8%)	6489.748 km (+10.6%)	16024.773 km

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

Subnet characteristic counts →

	Continents	Countries	Data Centers	Owners	Node Providers	Node Operator
EXISTING	3	13	13	13	13	13
PROPOSED	3	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	8	1	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	7 (-12.5%)	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	kwict	UP		Europe	Czechia	South Moravian Region 1 (bn1)	Master Internet	Bohatyrov Volodymyr	sjstt
Add	bqplp	UNASSIGNED		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 1 (hk1)	Unicom	Wancloud limited	z6cfb

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
najnj	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels 2 (br2)	AtlasEdge	Allusion	oorkg
2h6dm	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
kdowl	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 6 (zh6)	Green.ch	Sygnum Bank	ciprs
oiso5	UP		Europe	Spain	Madrid 3 (ma3)	IPCore	Vladyslav Popov	f4rto
ktqjk	UP		Asia	Japan	Tokyo (ty1)	Equinix	Starbase	cqjev
4nkoi	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 1 (sl1)	Megazone Cloud	Neptune Partners	ukji3
qzvif	UP		Europe	Poland	Warszawa 3 (wa3)	DataHouse	Artem Horodyskyi	ngpk7
7agd5	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
ozim4	UP		Europe	Sweden	Stockholm 1 (sh1)	Digital Realty	DFINITY Stiftung	lgp6d
jvqnq	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore (sg1)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	d4bin
5zqhj	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana 2 (lj2)	Anonstake	Anonstake	eu5wc
cvic3	UP		North America	United States of America (the)	Atlanta 2 (at2)	Datasite	BLP22, LLC	5syyj

---

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.

[MalithHatananchchige]

Proposal 135992 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR:
The proposal replaces an unstable node in South Moravian (EU) as mentioned by @aligatorr89 via the node rewards dashboard, the node seems to be having issues increasing failure rate to 40% in some days. No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed and decentralization stats remain the same. I vote to adopt

Provider Changes

Removed	Added
Bohatyrov Volodymyr	Wancloud limited

Location Changes

Removed	Added
Europe, South Moravian Region 1	Asia, HongKong 1

Nodes Removed 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
kwict…	UP	Bohatyrov Volodymyr	bn1	South Moravian Region 1

Nodes Added 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
bqplp…	UNASSIGNED	Wancloud limited	hk1	HongKong 1

Passes:

Node kwict…: Remove from Subnet check passed.
Node bqplp…: Replacement Status check passed.

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.

[timk11]

Proposal 135992 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet 4zbus, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP”, but showing a significant block failure rate (up to 36%) using the Node Provider Rewards tool. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.

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.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #135992 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted

Reason: The proposal replaces a a high failure rate node kwict from Czechia with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node bqplp from Hong Kong without any change to decentralization.

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.

[DRE-Team]

A new proposal with ID 137167 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace a node in subnet 4zbus

Motivation:

• replacing degraded node jvqnq

Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:

• 1 additional node would result in: equal decentralization across all features

Based on the calculated potential impact, not replacing additional nodes to improve optimization.

Note: the information below is provided for your convenience. Please independently verify the decentralization changes rather than relying solely on this summary.
Here is an explaination of how decentralization is currently calculated,
and there are also instructions for performing what-if analysis if you are wondering if another node would have improved decentralization more.

Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet 4zbus-z2bmt-ilreg-xakz4-6tyre-hsqj4-slb4g-zjwqo-snjcc-iqphi-3qe:

    node_provider: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
      data_center: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
data_center_owner: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
             area: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
          country: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)

Mean Nakamoto comparison: 5.00 → 5.00 (+0%)

Overall replacement impact: equal decentralization across all features

Details

Nodes removed:

• jvqnq-6jnty-tr3ml-izvma-e5w6e-s3rfx-w4wir-mwcsf-x5yok-nc4uz-6ae [health: degraded]

Nodes added:

• tyysz-7t5yp-ji7y6-7yazd-rvt6k-poda2-ttuih-5tcxt-rgexf-fya2j-wqe [health: healthy]

    node_provider                                                              data_center            data_center_owner            area                        country        
    -------------                                                              -----------            -----------------            ----                        -------        
    3oqw6-vmpk2-mlwlx-52z5x-e3p7u-fjlcw-yxc34-lf2zq-6ub2f-v63hk-lae       1    at2               1    Anonstake               1    Brussels Capital       1    BE            1
    4dibr-2alzr-h6kva-bvwn2-yqgsl-o577t-od46o-v275p-a2zov-tcw4f-eae       1    br2               1    AtlasEdge               1    Bucuresti              1    CA            1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe  1 -> 0    bu1               1    Cyxtera                 1    Douglas           0 -> 1    CH            1
    6r5lw-l7db7-uwixn-iw5en-yy55y-ilbtq-e6gcv-g22r2-j3g6q-y37jk-jqe       1    hk1               1    DataHouse               1    Georgia                1    ES            1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae       1    im1          0 -> 1    Datasite                1    HongKong               1    HK            1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    lj2               1    Digital Realty          1    Ljubljana              1    IM       0 -> 1
    diyay-s4rfq-xnx23-zczwi-nptra-5254n-e4zn6-p7tqe-vqhzr-sd4gd-bqe       1    ma3               1    Equinix                 1    Madrid                 1    JP            1
    g2ax6-jrkmb-3zuh3-jibtb-q5xoq-njrgo-5utbc-j2o7g-zfq2w-yyhky-dqe       1    sg1          1 -> 0    Green.ch                1    Ontario                1    KR            1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    sh1               1    IPCore                  1    Seoul                  1    PL            1
    kos24-5xact-6aror-uofg2-tnvt6-dq3bk-c2c5z-jtptt-jbqvc-lmegy-qae       1    sl1               1    M247                    1    Singapore         1 -> 0    RO            1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    to2               1    Manx Telecom       0 -> 1    Stockholm              1    SE            1
    rpfvr-s3kuw-xdqrr-pvuuj-hc7hl-olytw-yxlie-fmr74-sr572-6gdqx-iqe  0 -> 1    ty1               1    Megazone Cloud          1    Tokyo                  1    SG       1 -> 0
    sixix-2nyqd-t2k2v-vlsyz-dssko-ls4hl-hyij4-y7mdp-ja6cj-nsmpf-yae       1    wa3               1    Telin              1 -> 0    Warszawa               1    SI            1
    sma3p-ivkif-hz7nu-ngmvq-ibnjg-nubke-zf6gh-wbnfc-2dlng-l3die-zqe       1    zh6               1    Unicom                  1    Zurich                 1    US            1

[LaCosta]

Proposal 137167 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: REJECT

Summary: Proposes to replace node jvqnq advertised as degraded, even though the Dashboard shows this node as active, the ic-api also shows this node with status: UP and the Node monitor tool shows an average failure well below 1%.

The proposal replaces one node on subnet 4zbus:

• Removed Nodes: degraded node jvqnq, Dashboard Status: Active

• Added Nodes: node tyysz, Dashboard Status: Awaiting

The Node Monitor tool from Aviate Labs, with metrics until June 13th showed an Average Failure Rate of 0.35% for the node.

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.

[timk11]

Proposal 137167 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Reject

This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet 4zbus, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP” but described in the proposal as “degraded”. The dashboard page for this subnet shows that all nodes are currently operational and have been so for at least the past day or two. Unfortunately the Node Provider Rewards tool is unhelpful in this instance but presumably the issue affecting this node has now been resolved.

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.

[Lorimer]

Proposal 137167 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR: The proposal claims to replace a degraded node. The node isn’t currently considered degraded, and historic monitors such as Node Provider Rewards dashboard and other monitors show no evidence of significant degradation.

Country Discrepancies (1)

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
2h6dm	Toronto 2	Canada	United States of America (the)

Decentralisation Stats

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

	Smallest Distance	Average Distance	Largest Distance
EXISTING	477.108 km	6489.748 km	16024.773 km
PROPOSED	477.108 km	5677.913 km (-12.5%)	13483.156 km (-15.9%)

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

Subnet characteristic counts →

	Continents	Countries	Data Centers	Owners	Node Providers	Node Operator
EXISTING	3	13	13	13	13	13
PROPOSED	3	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	7	1	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	8 (+14.285714285714285%)	1	1	1	1	1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 137147

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	jvqnq	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore (sg1)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	d4bin
Add	tyysz	UNASSIGNED		Europe	Isle of Man	Douglas 1 (im1)	Manx Telecom	Blue Ant LLC	4isre

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
najnj	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels 2 (br2)	AtlasEdge	Allusion	oorkg
2h6dm	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
kdowl	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 6 (zh6)	Green.ch	Sygnum Bank	ciprs
oiso5	UP		Europe	Spain	Madrid 3 (ma3)	IPCore	Vladyslav Popov	f4rto
bqplp	UP		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 1 (hk1)	Unicom	Wancloud limited	z6cfb
ktqjk	UP		Asia	Japan	Tokyo (ty1)	Equinix	Starbase	cqjev
4nkoi	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 1 (sl1)	Megazone Cloud	Neptune Partners	ukji3
qzvif	UP		Europe	Poland	Warszawa 3 (wa3)	DataHouse	Artem Horodyskyi	ngpk7
7agd5	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
ozim4	UP		Europe	Sweden	Stockholm 1 (sh1)	Digital Realty	DFINITY Stiftung	lgp6d
5zqhj	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana 2 (lj2)	Anonstake	Anonstake	eu5wc
cvic3	UP		North America	United States of America (the)	Atlanta 2 (at2)	Datasite	BLP22, LLC	5syyj

---

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.

[ZoLee]

Proposal #137167 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted in order to get a clearer definition of what degraded means.

Reason:
The proposal replaces degraded node jvqnq from Singapore
with unassigned Healthy Awaiting status node tyysz from Isle of Man without any change to decentralization.

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]

Proposal 137167 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR:
This proposal removes 1 node(s) from Singapore and adds 1 replacement node(s) in Douglas 1. Node shows Active status, andthe ping tool shows healthy levels. Vote to reject

Subnet Details

Property	Value
ID	4zbus…
Type	verified_application
Memory Usage	222.63 GB
Running Canisters	52794
Description	N/A

Provider Changes

Removed	Added
OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	Blue Ant LLC

Location Changes

Removed	Added
Asia, Singapore	Europe, Douglas 1

Nodes Removed 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
jvqnq…	UP	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	sg1	Singapore

Nodes Added 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
tyysz…	UNASSIGNED	Blue Ant LLC	im1	Douglas 1

Issues:

ISSUE: Node jvqnq… is not degraded or dead as claimed.

Passes:

Node jvqnq…: Remove from Subnet check passed.

Node tyysz…: Replacement Status check passed.

Node tyysz…: Not assigned to any subnet.

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.

[cyberowl]

Proposal 137167 – Cyberowl | CodeGov

Vote: REJECT

Summary:

Claims to be degraded but shows active. Failure rate 0.3562%.

Summary

Health of each Node

// REMOVE
{
  "node_id": "jvqnq-6jnty-tr3ml-izvma-e5w6e-s3rfx-w4wir-mwcsf-x5yok-nc4uz-6ae",
  "status": "Active",
  "location": "Singapore",
  "provider": "OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital",
  "subnet_id": "4zbus-z2bmt-ilreg-xakz4-6tyre-hsqj4-slb4g-zjwqo-snjcc-iqphi-3qe"
}

// ADD
{
  "node_id": "tyysz-7t5yp-ji7y6-7yazd-rvt6k-poda2-ttuih-5tcxt-rgexf-fya2j-wqe",
  "status": "Awaiting",
  "location": "Douglas 1",
  "provider": "Blue Ant LLC",
  "subnet_id": "4zbus-z2bmt-ilreg-xakz4-6tyre-hsqj4-slb4g-zjwqo-snjcc-iqphi-3qe"
}

Decentralization & Topology Compliance

• Node Providers:
  • Maximize the number of distinct providers
• Data Centers:
  • Ensure maximum per DC is not exceeded
• Data Center Owners
  • Verify compliance with ownership regulations
• Countries:
  • Limit to no more than 3 nodes per country

Nakamoto-Coefficient Analysis

No Change.

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 137167 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR: Node was performing badly on 2 occasions which matches with data center sg1 issues. Let’s skip it and monitor it.

• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient stayed the same as on current topology.

Node Changes 1 removed, 1 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
jvqnq-6jnty-tr3ml-izvma-e5w6e-s3rfx-w4wir-mwcsf-x5yok-nc4uz-6ae → tyysz-7t5yp-ji7y6-7yazd-rvt6k-poda2-ttuih-5tcxt-rgexf-fya2j-wqe	UP → UNASSIGNED	SG → IM	Singapore → Douglas	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital → Blue Ant LLC	sg1 → im1	Telin → Manx Telecom

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		2	13
City	5		NA	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		2	13
City	5		NA	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

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.

[alexu]

Dear Reviewers,
we’ve submitted proposal 137598 to make sure only one node from the newly formed cluster is remaining in the subnet. We did ask the involved NPs to confirm in this thread.

[LaCosta]

Enhancing Network Decentralization - Proposals for Node Provider Standards

Summary: The following sequence of proposals introduce a new Node Cluster formed by 5 NPs Maksym Ishchenko, Ivanov Oleksandr, Vladyslav Popov, Bohatyrov Volodymyr and Artem Horodyskyi. At the of time the following reviews only NPs Bohatyrov Volodymyr (post), Maksym Ishchenko (post) and Vladyslav Popov (post) have made posts confirming an early enquiry of mine, here, asking for the Node Providers to confirm they were aware, agreed with the changes, and creation of the Node Cluster, giving them …

[Lorimer]

Proposal 137598 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Removes a node from a newly identified cluster (verified here and here), while maintaining decentralisation metrics within the specified IC Target Topology.

Country Discrepancies (1)

BDL node again shows a large discrepancy (unlike most other nodes) which is undesirable. However latency testing using Globalping points towards the claimed location

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
2h6dm	Toronto 2	Canada	United States of America (the)

Decentralisation Stats

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

	Smallest Distance	Average Distance	Largest Distance
EXISTING	477.108 km	6489.748 km	16024.773 km
PROPOSED	477.108 km	7807.101 km (+20.3%)	17303.929 km (+8%)

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

Subnet characteristic counts →

	Continents	Countries	Data Centers	Owners	Node Providers	Node Operator
EXISTING	3	13	13	13	13	13
PROPOSED	4 (+25%)	13	13	13	13	13

This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.

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	1	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	6 (-14.29%)	1	1	1	1	1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 137147

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	qzvif	UP		Europe	Poland	Warszawa 3 (wa3)	DataHouse	Artem Horodyskyi	ngpk7
Add	vhw7k	UP		Oceania	Australia	Melbourne 2 (mn2)	NEXTDC	Icaria Systems Pty Ltd	l5lhp

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
najnj	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels 2 (br2)	AtlasEdge	Allusion	oorkg
2h6dm	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
kdowl	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 6 (zh6)	Green.ch	Sygnum Bank	ciprs
oiso5	UP		Europe	Spain	Madrid 3 (ma3)	IPCore	Vladyslav Popov	f4rto
bqplp	UP		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 1 (hk1)	Unicom	Wancloud limited	z6cfb
ktqjk	UP		Asia	Japan	Tokyo (ty1)	Equinix	Starbase	cqjev
4nkoi	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 1 (sl1)	Megazone Cloud	Neptune Partners	ukji3
7agd5	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
ozim4	UP		Europe	Sweden	Stockholm 1 (sh1)	Digital Realty	DFINITY Stiftung	lgp6d
jvqnq	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore (sg1)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	d4bin
5zqhj	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana 2 (lj2)	Anonstake	Anonstake	eu5wc
cvic3	UP		North America	United States of America (the)	Atlanta 2 (at2)	Datasite	BLP22, LLC	5syyj

---

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.