Subnet Management - io67a (Application)

Proposal 135416 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: 1 offline node replaced with an unassigned node, and another node replaced in order to improve decentralisation. The number of nodes per country reduces to 1 with this proposal, which is great. The average distance between nodes also increases (spreading them out more).

There are a couple of country discrepancies, but the distances involved are fairly small, so could be considered to be within a reasonable margin of error.

Country Discrepancies (2)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
eexw3 Brussels Belgium France
xsa4m 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 1.636 km 7807.59 km 16474.251 km
PROPOSED 475.773 km (+28981.5%) 8426.999 km (+7.9%) 16474.251 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 5 12 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 5 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 j63cj UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 4 (zh4) Nine.Ch Tomahawk.vc paxme
Remove tkdjq DOWN :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 4 (hk4) hkntt Web3game dg7of
Add xexdo UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Pindar Technology Limited vzsx4
Add 5qw6d UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
q3w37 UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Queensland 1 (sc1) NEXTDC Karel Frank f3toa
eexw3 UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels (br1) Digital Realty Allusion mjeqs
xsa4m UP :bar_chart: North America Canada Vancouver (bc1) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs feb2q
a2e7m UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung byspq
cp7d4 UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
nyo3z UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo (ty1) Equinix Starbase cqjev
llbvn UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
poyg5 UP :bar_chart: Europe Latvia Riga 1 (rg1) DEAC Vladyslav Popov 7mdax
y6mus UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
c37f7 UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana 2 (lj2) Anonstake Anonstake eu5wc
plbgg UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Cape Town 1 (ct1) Africa Data Centres Illusions In Art (Pty) Ltd 2aemz


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.

1 Like