Thanks @SvenF. I know the thread on this topic is long at this point, so I will try to summarize my current thoughts after having re-read everything again.
The nodes in data centers FM1, SJ1, and TP1 are owned by DFINITY, but operated by others. There are a total of 77 nodes in these three data centers. These node operators have been receiving remuneration as per the current 48 month contract, which will expire in Dec24 -Jan25. Since they don’t own the hardware, they cannot move the nodes to new data centers or sell the nodes. At the end of the current 48 month contract, DFINITY is planning to remove all of these nodes from the data centers and repurpose them internally.
Proposal 132553 is the proposal that the NNS approved that defines Gen1 remuneration after 48 months.
- It explicitly states that total number of active nodes should remain unchanged: “we propose an approach that maintains Gen-1 NP rewards and network decentralization without reducing the total node count.”
- It also proposes mandatory requirements for how to handle excess nodes: “Any excess nodes from the 42-node cap can remain on the IC. While reassignment to a “New” NP is mandatory, these nodes may continue in the same or a different data center and/or country. A “New” NP can also be an existing NP with fewer than 42 nodes. No NP will receive rewards for more than 42 nodes, and the new NP will receive the same 33% reduced remuneration for the acquired nodes. New NPs not yet listed in the NNS will be accepted through the self-declaration process and respective proposals.”
- It allows these excess nodes to be taken on by other node providers without topology restriction: “NPs taking on these excess nodes will be allowed to onboard them without rejection due to target topology restrictions, as this is not an addition of new nodes but a reassignment that maintains the total node count and enhances network decentralization and utilization.”
Hence, the intent of proposal 132553 seems to be that every opportunity should be given to preserving the number of nodes that are in service. The inflation reduction is supposed to come from the 33% reduction in rewards that Gen1 node providers will receive, not by vacating node chits.
I see a fantastic opportunity to advance decentralization of the internet computer by letting the NNS assign these node chits to people and organizations who have actively contributed to the protocol. I certainly believe that CodeGov should qualify. @Lorimer has also proven his capability and may also be interested. Other organizations that come to mind who might also be interested and have actively pursued concrete contributions to advancing decentralization at the protocol level include ICDevs (@skilesare) and @louisevelayo from Aviate Labs (he is already a node provider, but may not be planning to operate 42 nodes).
Hence, I would like the opportunity to make the case to the NNS to assign any vacant node chits that can be identified over the next several months to these people and organizations. If the node chits can be allocated, then we can start talking about how to obtain the hardware. If DFINITY isn’t interested in selling, then we could build new machines. We could start a capital campaign to raise the funds…or launch an SNS focused on funding node providers who contribute to the protocol, but don’t have the capex to buy the machines.
Letting the NNS stand these people and organizations up through node provider remuneration and allowing them to be independent from DFINITY does far greater good for the decentralization of the internet computer than the overall negligible inflation reduction that will occur if these vacant node chits are allowed to disappear.