Subnet Management - jtdsg (Application)

Proposal 134549

TLDR: I’ll adopt. The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. Decentralisation stats look good.

Decentralisation Stats

Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 117.012 km 8088.339 km 16748.078 km
PROPOSED 117.012 km 8088.339 km 16748.078 km

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 5 13 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 5 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 6 1 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 6 1 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 63wdw UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore 3 (sg3) Racks Central OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital 5mhxl
Add tjg3r UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore (sg1) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital d4bin
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
4y5k6 UP :bar_chart: Oceania Australia Queensland 1 (sc1) NEXTDC Karel Frank f3toa
rphlf UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels (br1) Digital Realty Allusion mjeqs
dsnjt UP :bar_chart: Americas Canada Toronto 2 (to2) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs 4lp6i
gtc2a UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung vqe65
oe52f UP :bar_chart: Asia China HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Wancloud limited z6cfb
c4xi6 UP :bar_chart: Europe Croatia Zagreb 1 (zg1) Anonstake Anonstake 3sm7v
nioyi UP :bar_chart: Asia Japan Tokyo 3 (ty3) Equinix Starbase a5glg
3beeq UP :bar_chart: Europe Latvia Riga 3 (rg3) Nano Bohatyrov Volodymyr 6igux
pym4f UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
i5kts UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Ljubljana (lj1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG gl27f
46qvk UP :bar_chart: Americas United States of America (the) Orlando (or1) Datasite Giant Leaf, LLC redpf
4c63m UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Cape Town 2 (ct2) Teraco Kontrapunt (Pty) Ltd x7fjr

*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.