Subnet Management - 6pbhf (Application)

Proposal 135993 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: George Bassadone is an NP but is also represented by the GeoNodes NP (both NPs currently have a node in this subnet). This proposal removes the George Bassadone node in order to more rigorously comply with the IC Target Topology (specify one node per independent NP, per subnet).

Decentralisation is also improved in terms of the average distance between nodes.

Country Discrepancies (2)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
4mm7j Geneva 2 Switzerland Germany
afjfz 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 87.023 km 6470.897 km 17397.341 km
PROPOSED 87.023 km 6994.176 km (+8.1%) 17397.341 km

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 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 7 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 7 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 xqhoe UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
Add td2et UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 3 (kr1) KT Pindar Technology Limited iubpe
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
r4dbq UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Queensland 1 (sc1) NEXTDC ANYPOINT PTY LTD srrm2
afjfz UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
4mm7j UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Geneva 2 (ge2) SafeHost Extragone SA 5atxd
n4d4s UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
jj7si UP :bar_chart: Europe Spain Madrid 1 (ma1) Ginernet Artem Horodyskyi vgi2b
rzm7j UP :bar_chart: Europe Croatia Zagreb 1 (zg1) Anonstake Anonstake 3sm7v
vwsvq UP :bar_chart: Asia Israel Tel Aviv 1 (tv1) Interhost GeoNodes LLC lis4o
vuizy UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
tgmtp UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
2yzcy UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
efdju UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Maribor (mb1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG 3xiew
4cldf UP :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v


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.