TLDR: I’ve voted to adopt proposal 134490. Obvious decentralisation coefficients are improved (see decentralisation stats below). The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. The node being removed indeed belongs to DC CH3. However, I’m uncomfortable about adopting a proposal using this sort of evidence (given the ease with which such posts could be forged by the proposer).
I’m currently thinking about starting a discussion, and an associated motion proposal, about how to make this sort of thing more verifiable (verifiable consent from relevant parties).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
7729.19 km
18505.029 km
PROPOSED
0 km
7924.132 km (+2.5%)
19448.574 km (+5.1%)
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
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
5
25 (+4%)
34
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.) →
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)
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.
Replaces cordoned node sua4d, status Active with node 5resh, status Awaiting on subnet pzp6e.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard CH3 DC consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs specifically here.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
The proposal also takes the opportunity to further improve the decentralization coefficients, specifically the country metric reducing the number of nodes in the US from 3 to 2.
