Subnet Management - pjljw (Application)

[Lorimer]

Proposal 134913 Review | LORIMER Known Neuron

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Node jurisdiction diversity is improved by this proposal. Key metrics (specified by the IC Target Topology) remain unchanged . There is a clear public declaration for each cordoned node which is referred to in the proposal summary.

1 cordoned nodes replaced with a node in Canada.

Decentralisation Stats

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

	Smallest Distance	Average Distance	Largest Distance
EXISTING	0 km	7270.354 km	16759.085 km
PROPOSED	0 km	7882.581 km (+8.4%)	16759.085 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).

Subnet characteristic counts →

	Continents	Countries	Data Centers	Owners	Node Providers	Node Operator
EXISTING	5	11	13	13	13	13
PROPOSED	5	12 (+8.3%)	13	13	13	13

This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.

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	7	2	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	6 (-14.29%)	2	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	gtjga	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Geneva (ge1)	HighDC	Archery Blockchain SCSp	yngfj
Add	xbcli	UNASSIGNED		Americas	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
yjbaw	UP		Oceania	Australia	Melbourne 2 (mn2)	NEXTDC	Icaria Systems Pty Ltd	l5lhp
vdvh4	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels (br1)	Digital Realty	Allusion	mjeqs
fqczw	UP		Europe	Belgium	Seoul 3 (kr1)	KT	Pindar Technology Limited	iubpe
4bokb	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	xcne4
5ei6o	UP		Asia	China	HongKong 3 (hk3)	hkcolo	Power Meta Corporation	4lbqo
dd3ye	UP		Europe	Germany	Frankfurt 2 (fr2)	Equinix	Virtual Hive Ltd	3nu7r
5fpzb	UP		Asia	India	New Delhi 1 (nd1)	Marvelous Web3 DC	Marvelous Web3	ri4lg
tkoxk	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
vtbf4	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore 2 (sg2)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	qffmn
c6on3	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana (lj1)	Posita.si	Fractal Labs AG	gl27f
k67we	UP		Americas	United States of America (the)	Jacksonville (jv1)	Tierpoint	Rivonia Holdings LLC	wmrev
yszpk	UP		Africa	South Africa	Gauteng 2 (jb2)	Africa Data Centres	Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd	3bohy

*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)
• 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.

[timk11]

Proposal 134913 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces node gtjga which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Active” for the stated reason “offboarding the second rack of nodes in the GE1 DC after 48 months”. This node is listed to be handed over in this post. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.

About CodeGov…

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #134913 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted
Reason:
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node gtjga from Geneva, with
unassigned healthy Awaiting status node xbcli from Toronto. This improves the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info.

About CodeGov (click to expand).

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.


Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 134913 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

Replaces cordoned node gtjga with node xbcli on subnet pjljw.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard the GE1 DC consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
The node being removed was also stated here.

About CodeGov…

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[marc0olo]

I also had to look twice thanks for raising this question!

answer is here: Subnet Management - pjljw (Application) - #19 by wpb

@wpb not only @Lorimer could be confused about this (speaking as a voting neuron grant reviewer )

not sure if there is a good way to provide such context right now in the spreadsheet we use. I do not think it is needed there, but it would be great to provide some context here in case the team votes mentioned in the forum are “overrruled” for whatever reason. (cc @cryptoschindler)

[wpb]

Hey @marc0olo would you please clarify further what you need me to do? Do you need something beyond what was indicated here…

Subnet Management - pjljw (Application)

As mentioned by @timk11, the CodeGov team will get together soon to discuss and clarify reasons for casting votes to Reject proposals. I don’t want to see the CodeGov team use the Reject as a protest vote for seemingly trivial matters in high quantity. Our job is to look for correctness of the proposal as best we can and to highlight any issues and concerns, but we do not need to turn those issues and concerns into political agendas. I see CodeGov as an independent, collaborative team in supp…

…and here…

Subnet Management - pjljw (Application)

This is a false. I have never said that I would not vote manually for the CodeGov neuron on proposals. In fact, I have always retained the right to vote manually when needed. It’s even written into the formal proposal 131768 that was submitted to the NNS in our application to the Grants for Voting Neurons. You reviewed and approved this statement along with every other member of the CodeGov team. The configuration of the CodeGov known neuron is actively managed to ensure that Followees fo…

I just want to make sure I understand if there is any new request. I’m happy to do my part to make it easy for DFINITY to understand how the CodeGov vote is cast on any specific proposal.

[marc0olo]

@wpb

Hey @marc0olo would you please clarify further what you need me to do? Do you need something beyond what was indicated here…

I was just wondering why the vote differed from what the majority of CodeGov reviewers recommended to vote for here. then I tried to understand why that was the case and followed the discussion. I assume that if @Lorimer didn’t ask about it, I would have asked why that was the case.

from my side there is no concrete advise how to handle this, I was just a little bit surprised when I saw the mismatch between recommendation and actual vote. it would have been good to have more context without the need to ask.

[DRE-Team]

A new proposal with ID 135417 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace nodes in subnet pjljw

Motivation:

• replacing dead node 4bokb
• replacing dead node k67we

Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:

Based on the calculated potential impact, not replacing additional nodes to improve optimization.

Note: the information below is provided for your convenience. Please independently verify the decentralization changes rather than relying solely on this summary.
Here is an explaination of how decentralization is currently calculated,
and there are also instructions for performing what-if analysis if you are wondering if another node would have improved decentralization more.

Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet pjljw-kztyl-46ud4-ofrj6-nzkhm-3n4nt-wi3jt-ypmav-ijqkt-gjf66-uae:

    node_provider: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
      data_center: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
data_center_owner: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
             area: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
          country: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)

Mean Nakamoto comparison: 5.00 → 5.00 (+0%)

Overall replacement impact: equal decentralization across all features

Impact on business rules penalties: 1000 → 0

Details

Nodes removed:

• 4bokb-dd7ie-6sx2e-s75z3-ncqvu-rfjzo-gfe4g-lzlma-bship-vmd2o-vqe [health: dead]
• k67we-rbzgg-dzz2e-y3rki-ourfo-tfxdk-boewb-zyayq-l5m7f-su4px-gae [health: dead]

Nodes added:

• pzhdx-bue7v-bemr2-zkw4b-bpije-pc2jc-wrhwo-hfrwj-p646g-ibscz-dae [health: healthy]
• ucznq-t6max-wjxsb-yryjd-qgrbu-5nn4z-qfwqk-chaap-lymtj-cktlx-jae [health: healthy]

    node_provider                                                              data_center            data_center_owner              area                        country   
    -------------                                                              -----------            -----------------              ----                        -------   
    4fedi-eu6ue-nd7ts-vnof5-hzg66-hgzl7-liy5n-3otyp-h7ipw-owycg-uae       1    br1               1    Africa Data Centres       1    Brussels Capital       1    AU       1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe       1    bu1               1    Cyxtera                   1    Bucuresti              1    BE       1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae       1    dl1          0 -> 1    Digital Realty            1    Florida           1 -> 0    CA       1
    7uioy-xitfw-yqcko-5gpya-3lpsw-dw7zt-dyyyf-wfqif-jvi76-fdbkg-cqe       1    fr2               1    Equinix                   1    Gauteng                1    CH       1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    hk3               1    Everyware                 1    Hesse                  1    DE       1
    eipr5-izbom-neyqh-s3ec2-52eww-cyfpg-qfomg-3dpwj-4pffh-34xcu-7qe  0 -> 1    jb2               1    Flexential           0 -> 1    HongKong               1    HK       1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    jv1          1 -> 0    KT                        1    Ljubljana              1    IN       1
    ihbuj-erwnc-tkjux-tqtnv-zkoar-uniy2-sk2go-xfpkc-znbb4-seukm-wqe       1    kr1               1    M247                      1    Melbourne              1    KR       1
    nmdd6-rouxw-55leh-wcbkn-kejit-njvje-p4s6e-v64d3-nlbjb-vipul-mae       1    lj1               1    Marvelous Web3 DC         1    New Delhi              1    RO       1
    r3yjn-kthmg-pfgmb-2fngg-5c7d7-t6kqg-wi37r-j7gy6-iee64-kjdja-jae       1    mn2               1    NEXTDC                    1    Ontario                1    SG       1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    nd1               1    Posita.si                 1    Seoul                  1    SI       1
    spp3m-vawt7-3gyh6-pjz5d-6zidf-up3qb-yte62-otexv-vfpqg-n6awf-lqe  1 -> 0    sg2               1    Telin                     1    Singapore              1    US       1
    wdjjk-blh44-lxm74-ojj43-rvgf4-j5rie-nm6xs-xvnuv-j3ptn-25t4v-6ae       1    to2               1    Tierpoint            1 -> 0    Texas             0 -> 1    ZA       1
    wdnqm-clqti-im5yf-iapio-avjom-kyppl-xuiza-oaz6z-smmts-52wyg-5ae       1    zh2               1    hkcolo                    1    Zurich                 1              

Business rules check results before the membership change:

• Subnet should have 1 DFINITY-owned node(s) for subnet recovery, got 0

[Lorimer]

Proposal 135417 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: 2 down nodes replaced with 2 unassigned nodes. IC Target Topology metrics remain unchanged. One of the nodes being replaced is a DFINITY nodes, necessarily replaced by another DFINITY node.

There’s a country discrepancy covering a rather large distance (despite the geolocation provider utilising a probe network). Something to revisit, given that the node in question isn’t affected directly by this proposal.

Country Discrepancies (2)

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
vdvh4	Brussels	Belgium	France
xbcli	Toronto 2	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	305.949 km	8206.244 km	16616.573 km
PROPOSED	305.949 km	8232.538 km (+0.3%)	16616.573 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).

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	5	1	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	5	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)

• 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	4bokb	DOWN		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	xcne4
Remove	k67we	DOWN		North America	United States of America (the)	Jacksonville (jv1)	Tierpoint	Rivonia Holdings LLC	wmrev
Add	pzhdx	UNASSIGNED		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	db7fe
Add	ucznq	UNASSIGNED		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
yjbaw	UP		Oceania	Australia	Melbourne 2 (mn2)	NEXTDC	Icaria Systems Pty Ltd	l5lhp
vdvh4	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels (br1)	Digital Realty	Allusion	mjeqs
xbcli	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
dd3ye	UP		Europe	Germany	Frankfurt 2 (fr2)	Equinix	Virtual Hive Ltd	3nu7r
5ei6o	UP		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 3 (hk3)	hkcolo	Power Meta Corporation	4lbqo
5fpzb	UP		Asia	India	New Delhi 1 (nd1)	Marvelous Web3 DC	Marvelous Web3	ri4lg
fqczw	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 3 (kr1)	KT	Pindar Technology Limited	iubpe
tkoxk	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
vtbf4	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore 2 (sg2)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	qffmn
c6on3	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana (lj1)	Posita.si	Fractal Labs AG	gl27f
yszpk	UP		Africa	South Africa	Gauteng 2 (jb2)	Africa Data Centres	Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd	3bohy

---

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.

[timk11]

Proposal 135417 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces 2 nodes in subnet pjljw, appearing in the decentralization tool as “DOWN”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 135417 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: 2 healthy nodes will replace 2 unhealthy ones.

• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient stayed the same as on current topology.

Node Changes 2 removed, 2 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
4bokb-dd7ie-6sx2e-s75z3-ncqvu-rfjzo-gfe4g-lzlma-bship-vmd2o-vqe → pzhdx-bue7v-bemr2-zkw4b-bpije-pc2jc-wrhwo-hfrwj-p646g-ibscz-dae	DOWN → UNASSIGNED	CH → CH	Zurich → Zurich	DFINITY Stiftung → DFINITY Stiftung	zh2 → zh2	Everyware → Everyware
k67we-rbzgg-dzz2e-y3rki-ourfo-tfxdk-boewb-zyayq-l5m7f-su4px-gae → ucznq-t6max-wjxsb-yryjd-qgrbu-5nn4z-qfwqk-chaap-lymtj-cktlx-jae	DOWN → UNASSIGNED	US → US	Florida → Texas	Rivonia Holdings LLC → 87m Neuron, LLC	jv1 → dl1	Tierpoint → Flexential

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5	1	2	13
City	5	1	1	13
Data Center	5	1	1	13
Data Center Owner	5	1	1	13
Node Provider ID	5	1	1	13

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5	1	2	13
City	5	1	1	13
Data Center	5	1	1	13
Data Center Owner	5	1	1	13
Node Provider ID	5	1	1	13

You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron 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.

[MalithHatananchchige]

Proposal 135417 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE:Yes

TLDR:
The proposal replaces offline nodes in Zurich (Europe) and Jacksonville (North America).
No issues found in nodes or locations proposed. I vote to ADOPT

Provider Changes

Removed	Added
DFINITY Stiftung	DFINITY Stiftung
Rivonia Holdings LLC	87m Neuron, LLC

Location Changes

Removed	Added
Europe, Zurich 2	Europe, Zurich 2
North America, Jacksonville	North America, Dallas

Nodes Removed 2

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
4bokb…	DOWN	DFINITY Stiftung	zh2	Zurich 2
k67we…	DOWN	Rivonia Holdings LLC	jv1	Jacksonville

Nodes Added 2

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
pzhdx…	UNASSIGNED	DFINITY Stiftung	zh2	Zurich 2
ucznq…	UNASSIGNED	87m Neuron, LLC	dl1	Dallas

Passes:

Node 4bokb…: Health check passed.

Node 4bokb…: Remove from Subnet check passed.

Node k67we…: Health check passed.

Node k67we…: Remove from Subnet check passed.

Node pzhdx…: Replacement Status check passed.

Node ucznq…: Replacement Status check passed.

You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron 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.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #135417 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted
Reason:
The proposal replaces 2 dead Offline status node 4bokb from the ZH2 DC in Zurich and dead Offline status node k67we from the JV1 DC in Florida, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node pzhdx from Zurich and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ucznq from Dallas, without any change to decentralization.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 135417 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

The proposal replaces two dead nodes on subnet pjljw:

• dead node 4bokb Dashboard Status: Offline and dead node k67we Dashboard Status: Offline

with nodes:

• node pzhdx Dashboard Status: Awaiting and node ucznq Dashboard Status: Awaiting

There is no impact in the overall decentralization across all features.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[DRE-Team]

A new proposal with ID 135996 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace a node in subnet pjljw

Motivation:
The node operator 4lbqo (under NP 4fedi) has 5 nodes in total and currently has all nodes assigned to subnets. We propose to remove one of the operator’s nodes from subnet pjljw to allow optimization of the overall network topology. The removal of the node from the subnet does not worsen subnet decentralization, and may allow the node to be assigned to subnet where it would improve decentralization.

Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet pjljw-kztyl-46ud4-ofrj6-nzkhm-3n4nt-wi3jt-ypmav-ijqkt-gjf66-uae:

    node_provider: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
      data_center: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
data_center_owner: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
             area: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
          country: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)

Mean Nakamoto comparison: 5.00 → 5.00 (+0%)

Overall replacement impact: equal decentralization across all features

Details

Nodes removed:

• 5ei6o-6mx3z-zag6b-ubdsz-odxr3-ytixv-rrnv3-khmkc-4tuni-ber6p-mae [health: healthy]

Nodes added:

• jemyk-uhint-w6ftv-s3xpy-ne4hr-xbcpu-aqskm-6a4cy-orm5q-aqqwd-gqe [health: healthy]

    node_provider                                                              data_center            data_center_owner              area                   country   
    -------------                                                              -----------            -----------------              ----                   -------   
    4fedi-eu6ue-nd7ts-vnof5-hzg66-hgzl7-liy5n-3otyp-h7ipw-owycg-uae  1 -> 0    br1               1    Africa Data Centres       1    Brussels Capital  1    AU       1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe       1    bu1               1    Cyxtera                   1    Bucuresti         1    BE       1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae       1    dl1               1    Digital Realty            1    Gauteng           1    CA       1
    7uioy-xitfw-yqcko-5gpya-3lpsw-dw7zt-dyyyf-wfqif-jvi76-fdbkg-cqe       1    fr2               1    Equinix                   1    Hesse             1    CH       1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    hk1          0 -> 1    Everyware                 1    HongKong          1    DE       1
    eipr5-izbom-neyqh-s3ec2-52eww-cyfpg-qfomg-3dpwj-4pffh-34xcu-7qe       1    hk3          1 -> 0    Flexential                1    Ljubljana         1    HK       1
    g2ax6-jrkmb-3zuh3-jibtb-q5xoq-njrgo-5utbc-j2o7g-zfq2w-yyhky-dqe  0 -> 1    jb2               1    KT                        1    Melbourne         1    IN       1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    kr1               1    M247                      1    New Delhi         1    KR       1
    ihbuj-erwnc-tkjux-tqtnv-zkoar-uniy2-sk2go-xfpkc-znbb4-seukm-wqe       1    lj1               1    Marvelous Web3 DC         1    Ontario           1    RO       1
    nmdd6-rouxw-55leh-wcbkn-kejit-njvje-p4s6e-v64d3-nlbjb-vipul-mae       1    mn2               1    NEXTDC                    1    Seoul             1    SG       1
    r3yjn-kthmg-pfgmb-2fngg-5c7d7-t6kqg-wi37r-j7gy6-iee64-kjdja-jae       1    nd1               1    Posita.si                 1    Singapore         1    SI       1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    sg2               1    Telin                     1    Texas             1    US       1
    wdjjk-blh44-lxm74-ojj43-rvgf4-j5rie-nm6xs-xvnuv-j3ptn-25t4v-6ae       1    to2               1    Unicom               0 -> 1    Zurich            1    ZA       1
    wdnqm-clqti-im5yf-iapio-avjom-kyppl-xuiza-oaz6z-smmts-52wyg-5ae       1    zh2               1    hkcolo               1 -> 0                                     

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 135996 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Node has been performing ok. Motivation is that node will be better used in other subnets.

• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient stayed the same as on current topology.

Node Changes 1 removed, 1 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
5ei6o-6mx3z-zag6b-ubdsz-odxr3-ytixv-rrnv3-khmkc-4tuni-ber6p-mae → jemyk-uhint-w6ftv-s3xpy-ne4hr-xbcpu-aqskm-6a4cy-orm5q-aqqwd-gqe	UP → UNASSIGNED	HK → HK	HongKong → HongKong	Power Meta Corporation → Wancloud limited	hk3 → hk1	hkcolo → Unicom

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		3	13
City	5		1	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		3	13
City	5		1	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron 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.

[JimmySteve]

I just want to say that I appreciate everyone stating what they’re voing and why.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 135996 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

The proposal replaces a 1 node on subnet pjljw:
node 5ei6o Dashboard Status: Active with node jemyk Dashboard Status: Awaiting.

The proposal replaces the node since it’s Node Operator currently has all it’s nodes assigned to subnets and this node may be well suited in another subnet in order to improve decentralization.

There is no impact in the overall decentralization across all features.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.

[Lorimer]

Proposal 135996 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: The proposal ‘motivation’ claim below can be verified here, but running a text search on 4fedi-eu6ue-nd7ts-vnof5-hzg66-hgzl7-liy5n-3otyp-h7ipw-owycg-uae, showing that all nodes are currently allocated to subnets. This proposal removes one such node from this subnet.

We can see that the node provider for the replacement node (g2ax6-jrkmb-3zuh3-jibtb-q5xoq-njrgo-5utbc-j2o7g-zfq2w-yyhky-dqe) only has 3 of their 10 nodes assigned to subnets. This proposal increases that number to 4, balancing node provider allocation across subnets - making the IC Target Topology generally easier to achieve (less likely to get stuck in local optima).

Motivation: The node operator 4lbqo (under NP 4fedi) has 5 nodes in total and currently has all nodes assigned to subnets. We propose to remove one of the operator’s nodes from subnet pjljw to allow optimization of the overall network topology. The removal of the node from the subnet does not worsen subnet decentralization, and may allow the node to be assigned to subnet where it would improve decentralization.

Country Discrepancies (2)

@Lorimer

Hi @Gabriel_Rodriguez, could you clarify/confirm the location of this node please?

Node	Data Center	Claimed Country	According to ipinfo.io
vdvh4	Brussels	Belgium	France
xbcli	Toronto 2	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	305.949 km	8232.538 km	16616.573 km
PROPOSED	305.949 km	8232.555 km	16616.573 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	5	1	1	1	1	1
PROPOSED	5	1	1	1	1	1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 135700

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	5ei6o	UP		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 3 (hk3)	hkcolo	Power Meta Corporation	4lbqo
Add	jemyk	UNASSIGNED		Asia	Hong Kong	HongKong 1 (hk1)	Unicom	Wancloud limited	z6cfb

Other Nodes

Node	Status		Continent	Country	Data Center	Owner	Node Provider	Node Operator
yjbaw	UP		Oceania	Australia	Melbourne 2 (mn2)	NEXTDC	Icaria Systems Pty Ltd	l5lhp
vdvh4	UP		Europe	Belgium	Brussels (br1)	Digital Realty	Allusion	mjeqs
xbcli	UP		North America	Canada	Toronto 2 (to2)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	4lp6i
pzhdx	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	db7fe
dd3ye	UP		Europe	Germany	Frankfurt 2 (fr2)	Equinix	Virtual Hive Ltd	3nu7r
5fpzb	UP		Asia	India	New Delhi 1 (nd1)	Marvelous Web3 DC	Marvelous Web3	ri4lg
fqczw	UP		Asia	Korea (the Republic of)	Seoul 3 (kr1)	KT	Pindar Technology Limited	iubpe
tkoxk	UP		Europe	Romania	Bucharest (bu1)	M247	Iancu Aurel	c5ssg
vtbf4	UP		Asia	Singapore	Singapore 2 (sg2)	Telin	OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital	qffmn
c6on3	UP		Europe	Slovenia	Ljubljana (lj1)	Posita.si	Fractal Labs AG	gl27f
ucznq	UP		North America	United States of America (the)	Dallas (dl1)	Flexential	87m Neuron, LLC	mw64v
yszpk	UP		Africa	South Africa	Gauteng 2 (jb2)	Africa Data Centres	Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd	3bohy

---

You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron 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.

[timk11]

Proposal 135996 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet pjljw, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP”, for the purpose of making it available to other subnets in order to improve overall network topology. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.