Proposal 133444
TLDR: Rejected due to erroneous proposal that would leave the subnet with fewer nodes
3 nodes replaced with nodes in Croatia, Switzerland and Estonia. The Switzerland node is down, hence the need for the proposal. The other nodes are swapped in an attempt to improve decentralisation (a modest improvement in country diversity is achieved, at the slight expense continent decentralisation).
The only problem I see with this proposal is that it pretends to replace 5 nodes, but it’s actually only replacing 3 (the other 2 are removed and added within the same proposal).
- wr22o-nmso7-rmkqr-vzkv5-eg2cd-kxx3o-jbjnc-e5tjy-ety5p-rz4vf-uqe
- zzuq4-xiygt-ypkox-2tgdr-yvpzp-optye-xazeq-vnpw5-pata3-4jlle-wqe
This is normally something that I’d reject. I guess I should ask first, what would the affect actually be of adding and removing nodes within the same proposal? Would this cause the proposal to fail, would it execute and take these 2 nodes out and then bring them in again, or is the behaviour unspecified and therefore not certain? @sat and/or @SvenF, I’d value your opinion on this (I’m not sure who submitted the proposal - it wasn’t announced on the forum).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7972.045 km | 18505.029 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km | 7528.823 km (-5.6%) | 18505.029 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 | 5 | 23 | 34 | 34 | 34 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 25 (+8%) | 34 | 34 | 34 |
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 15 (+15.38%) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
This proposal does lead to a worse situation regarding continents (15 in the same continent in stead of 13). However continent isn’t currently al focus of the IC Target Topology.
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)
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:
-
Synapse (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)