Proposal 134542
TLDR: To be continued…
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 27.369 km | 1318.881 km | 3485.353 km |
| PROPOSED | 95.554 km (+249.1%) | 1390.099 km (+5.4%) | 3485.353 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). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 1 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 1 | 12 (+8.3%) | 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 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 13 | 2 (-33.33%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136
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)
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Add | yf2ct | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Latvia | Riga 1 (rg1) | DEAC | MB Patrankos šūvis | jptla |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3yok3 | UP | |
Europe | Austria | South Moravian Region 1 (bn1) | Master Internet | Lukas Helebrandt | zc635 |
| xzpf4 | UP | |
Europe | Belgium | Brussels 2 (br2) | AtlasEdge | Allusion | oorkg |
| c2dnc | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Geneva (ge1) | HighDC | Archery Blockchain SCSp | yngfj |
| w3phu | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 3 (zh3) | Nine.Ch | Tomahawk.vc | anodw |
| dzol4 | UP | |
Europe | Germany | Frankfurt 2 (fr2) | Equinix | Virtual Hive Ltd | 3nu7r |
| pekym | UP | |
Europe | Spain | Barcelona 1 (es1) | Adam | Carbon Twelve | gyzti |
| 35ddr | UP | |
Europe | Estonia | Tallinn 2 (ta2) | Telia DC | Ivanov Oleksandr | kcyob |
| ldqxr | UP | |
Europe | Lithuania | Vilnius 2 (vl2) | Data Inn | George Bassadone | inluf |
| 7exbb | UP | |
Europe | Portugal | Barreiro 1 (ba1) | Online | Bohatyrov Volodymyr | 2ibzn |
| foa3b | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| popmv | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Ljubljana (lj1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | gl27f |
| a3xcb | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
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.
Additional good neurons to follow:
- D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
- Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
- CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical topics)
- WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
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.