There’s currently a new open ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposal for this subnet.
Proposal 132143
TLDR: I’ve rejected this proposal as it does not solve the offline node issue, and the payload parameters appear to contains errors.
- Note that node vwsvq is included in both the nodes removed and nodes added parameters of the payload. Swapping nodes is supposed to be a transactional operation (I wouldn’t be surprised if this would fail to execute).
- The other node swap in this proposal is taking the opportunity to improve subnet decentralisation (given there’s already a need for a proposal). 1 of the two nodes in the USA is proposed to be replaced with one node in Singapore. This increases the country coefficient (… but it was already within the acceptable range, and other subnets are in much more need of decentralisation).
My suggestion would be to reject this proposal and resubmit one that solves the offline node problem, and raise other proposals to address the subnets that are currently violating the target IC topology before looking to improve the topology of subnets that are not formally in need of it (unless it’s a strategic move to help free up nodes that are needed by other subnets - but this should be clearly explained).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 3.534 km | 7115.008 km | 16955.201 km |
| PROPOSED | 3.534 km | 6874.501 km (-3.4%) | 16955.201 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). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 4 | 10 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 4 | 11 (+9.1%) | 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 6 (+20%) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 125549 (note that these are due for a slight revision)
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)
Table
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.
Other good neurons to follow:
-
CodeGov (will soon be committed to actively reviewing and voting on Subnet Management proposals based on those reviews)
-
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)