Subnet Management - 4zbus (Application)

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.

1 Like

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)
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). :+1:

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 :bar_chart: Europe Czechia South Moravian Region 1 (bn1) Master Internet Bohatyrov Volodymyr sjstt
Add bqplp UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: 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 :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels 2 (br2) AtlasEdge Allusion oorkg
2h6dm UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
kdowl UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 6 (zh6) Green.ch Sygnum Bank ciprs
oiso5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Spain Madrid 3 (ma3) IPCore Vladyslav Popov f4rto
ktqjk UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
4nkoi UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
qzvif UP :bar_chart: Europe Poland Warszawa 3 (wa3) DataHouse Artem Horodyskyi ngpk7
7agd5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
ozim4 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
jvqnq UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
5zqhj UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
cvic3 UP :bar_chart: 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.

Proposal 135992 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES :white_check_mark:

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

:white_check_mark: Passes:

:white_check_mark: Node kwict…: Remove from Subnet check passed.
:white_check_mark: 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.

2 Likes

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.

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.

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

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

Proposal 137167 Review | Lorimer :infinity: :dog_face: - 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). :-1:

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 :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
Add tyysz UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: 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 :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels 2 (br2) AtlasEdge Allusion oorkg
2h6dm UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
kdowl UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 6 (zh6) Green.ch Sygnum Bank ciprs
oiso5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Spain Madrid 3 (ma3) IPCore Vladyslav Popov f4rto
bqplp UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
ktqjk UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
4nkoi UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
qzvif UP :bar_chart: Europe Poland Warszawa 3 (wa3) DataHouse Artem Horodyskyi ngpk7
7agd5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
ozim4 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
5zqhj UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
cvic3 UP :bar_chart: 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.

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.

Proposal 137167 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO :cross_mark:

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

:warning: Issues:

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

:white_check_mark: Passes:

:white_check_mark: Node jvqnq…: Remove from Subnet check passed.

:white_check_mark: Node tyysz…: Replacement Status check passed.

:white_check_mark: 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.

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.

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-6aetyysz-7t5yp-ji7y6-7yazd-rvt6k-poda2-ttuih-5tcxt-rgexf-fya2j-wqe UP → UNASSIGNED SGIM SingaporeDouglas OneSixtyTwo Digital CapitalBlue Ant LLC sg1im1 TelinManx 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.

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.

1 Like

Proposal 137598 Review | Lorimer :infinity: :dog_face: - 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). :+1:

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. :+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 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 :bar_chart: Europe Poland Warszawa 3 (wa3) DataHouse Artem Horodyskyi ngpk7
Add vhw7k UP :bar_chart: 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 :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels 2 (br2) AtlasEdge Allusion oorkg
2h6dm UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
kdowl UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 6 (zh6) Green.ch Sygnum Bank ciprs
oiso5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Spain Madrid 3 (ma3) IPCore Vladyslav Popov f4rto
bqplp UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
ktqjk UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
4nkoi UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
7agd5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
ozim4 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
jvqnq UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
5zqhj UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
cvic3 UP :bar_chart: 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.

A new proposal with ID 137912 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace a node in subnet 4zbus

Motivation:
Replacing a dead node

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:

  • bqplp-iejs2-2awcz-oiy6u-62jzx-rzp66-z4eba-m6nan-dtljh-bb4pn-rae [health: dead]

Nodes added:

  • snwzs-jy7bs-y6t3i-kegus-3s5xm-ob7yz-bcje6-qjb2m-jgndt-5dvbl-oae [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    AU            1
    4dibr-2alzr-h6kva-bvwn2-yqgsl-o577t-od46o-v275p-a2zov-tcw4f-eae       1    br2               1    AtlasEdge               1    Bucuresti              1    BE            1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe       1    bu1               1    Cyxtera                 1    Georgia                1    CA            1
    6r5lw-l7db7-uwixn-iw5en-yy55y-ilbtq-e6gcv-g22r2-j3g6q-y37jk-jqe       1    gn1          0 -> 1    Datasite                1    Greater Noida     0 -> 1    CH            1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae       1    hk1          1 -> 0    Digital Realty          1    HongKong          1 -> 0    ES            1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    lj2               1    Equinix                 1    Ljubljana              1    HK       1 -> 0
    cp5ib-twnmx-h4dvd-isef2-tu44u-kb2ka-fise5-m4hta-hnxoq-k45mm-hqe  0 -> 1    ma3               1    Green.ch                1    Madrid                 1    IN       0 -> 1
    g2ax6-jrkmb-3zuh3-jibtb-q5xoq-njrgo-5utbc-j2o7g-zfq2w-yyhky-dqe  1 -> 0    mn2               1    IPCore                  1    Melbourne              1    JP            1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    sg1               1    M247                    1    Ontario                1    KR            1
    ihbuj-erwnc-tkjux-tqtnv-zkoar-uniy2-sk2go-xfpkc-znbb4-seukm-wqe       1    sh1               1    Megazone Cloud          1    Seoul                  1    RO            1
    kos24-5xact-6aror-uofg2-tnvt6-dq3bk-c2c5z-jtptt-jbqvc-lmegy-qae       1    sl1               1    NEXTDC                  1    Singapore              1    SE            1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    to2               1    Telin                   1    Stockholm              1    SG            1
    sixix-2nyqd-t2k2v-vlsyz-dssko-ls4hl-hyij4-y7mdp-ja6cj-nsmpf-yae       1    ty1               1    Unicom             1 -> 0    Tokyo                  1    SI            1
    sma3p-ivkif-hz7nu-ngmvq-ibnjg-nubke-zf6gh-wbnfc-2dlng-l3die-zqe       1    zh6               1    Yotta              0 -> 1    Zurich                 1    US            1
1 Like

Proposal 137912 Review | Lorimer :infinity: :dog_face: - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Replaces a down node with an up node. There’s a very slight reduction in the average distance between nodes, but the IC Target Topology is respected.

Country Discrepancies (1)

Ping testing consistently backs up the claimed location of BDL nodes (ipinfo appears to provide inaccurate geolocation results)

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 7807.101 km 17303.929 km
PROPOSED 477.108 km 7675.495 km (-1.7%) 17303.929 km

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 6 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 bqplp DOWN :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
Add snwzs UP :bar_chart: Asia India Greater Noida 1 (gn1) Yotta ACCUSET SOLUTIONS slaxf
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
vhw7k UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Melbourne 2 (mn2) NEXTDC Icaria Systems Pty Ltd l5lhp
najnj UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels 2 (br2) AtlasEdge Allusion oorkg
2h6dm UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
kdowl UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 6 (zh6) Green.ch Sygnum Bank ciprs
oiso5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Spain Madrid 3 (ma3) IPCore Vladyslav Popov f4rto
ktqjk UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
4nkoi UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
7agd5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
ozim4 UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
jvqnq UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
5zqhj UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
cvic3 UP :bar_chart: 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.

1 Like

Proposal 137912 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Replaces unhealthy node.

  • 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
bqplp-iejs2-2awcz-oiy6u-62jzx-rzp66-z4eba-m6nan-dtljh-bb4pn-raesnwzs-jy7bs-y6t3i-kegus-3s5xm-ob7yz-bcje6-qjb2m-jgndt-5dvbl-oae DOWN → UP HKIN HongKongGreater Noida Wancloud limitedACCUSET SOLUTIONS hk1gn1 UnicomYotta
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute Nakamoto Coefficient Identical attribute values Max allowed identical values Unique Counts
Country 5 2 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
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.

1 Like

Proposal 137912 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces node bqplp which appears in the dashboard as “Offline”. The replacement node appears in the dashboard as “Healthy”. As shown in the proposal and verified using the DRE tool, 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, API Boundary API Boundary Node 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.