Subnet Management - csyj4 (Application)

Proposal 135428 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: 1 offline node replaced with an unassigned node, and a healthy node replaced with another unassigned node in order to improve decentralisation. After this proposal executes there will be only 1 node per country (rather than a max of two). In addition the average distance between nodes increases.

Country Discrepancies (1)

This is a minor discrepancy (in terms of distance) so can be considered to be within a margin of error.

Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
h3iv6 Vancouver 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 224.22 km 7614.307 km 16458.534 km
PROPOSED 474.402 km (+111.6%) 8257.537 km (+8.4%) 16449.469 km (-0.1%)

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 12 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 5 (+20%) 13 (+7.7%) 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 5 2 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 5 1 (-50%) 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)

  • 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 cwaya UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 7 (zh7) Green.ch Sygnum Bank tisgk
Remove 5s6r2 DOWN :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Jacksonville (jv1) Tierpoint Rivonia Holdings LLC wmrev
Add tun2n UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v
Add i22yb UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 2 (jb2) Africa Data Centres Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd 3bohy
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
i4zve UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Queensland 1 (sc1) NEXTDC ANYPOINT PTY LTD srrm2
h3iv6 UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Vancouver (bc1) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs feb2q
6t3hc UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Geneva (ge1) HighDC Archery Blockchain SCSp yngfj
elons UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
ami6p UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
5az5s UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Pindar Technology Limited vzsx4
k4ecc UP :bar_chart: Asia India Panvel 2 (pl2) Yotta Krishna Enterprises 7rw6b
5hvab UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 2 (kr2) Gasan Web3game 5dwhe
kno7y UP :bar_chart: Europe Sweden Stockholm 1 (sh1) Digital Realty DFINITY Stiftung lgp6d
cupz3 UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
g3ug2 UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc


You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron (coming soon) 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.