Proposal 132144
TLDR: I’ve rejected this proposal as it does not solve the degraded node issue, and the payload parameters appear to contain errors.
- Note that node i5xgw is included in both the nodes removed and nodes added parameters of the payload. Swapping nodes is supposed to be a transactional operation (I wouldn’t be surprised if this would fail to execute).
- The other node swap in this proposal is taking the opportunity to improve subnet decentralisation (given there’s already a need for a proposal). 1 of the 4 nodes in the USA is proposed to be replaced with one node in Spain. This brings the owner coefficient into the acceptable range (the subnet was previously violating it), however, this proposal still leaves the subnet in a state that is in violation of the formally voted in IC Target Topology. There is supposed to be no more than 2 nodes in the same country (not 3 nodes in one country).
My suggestion would be to reject this proposal and resubmit one that solves the degraded node problem, and gets this subnet back into a state that conforms to the IC target topology (else clearly explain in the proposal summary why this latter point is not feasible).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 3.534 km | 6951.098 km | 15939.448 km |
| PROPOSED | 3.534 km | 6513.004 km (-6.3%) | 15939.448 km |
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 3 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 3 | 10 (+10%) | 13 | 13 (+7.7%) | 13 |
This proposal significantly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction and data center ownership diversity. 
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 7 (+16.64%) | 3 (-25%) | 1 | 1 (-50%) | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 125549 (note that these are due for a slight revision)
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)
Table
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.
Other good neurons to follow:
-
CodeGov (will soon be committed to actively reviewing and voting on Subnet Management proposals based on those reviews)
-
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)