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.
Voted to reject proposal 134574 as this is part of a large batch of non-critical proposals timed such that the voting period clashes with national holidays, thereby allowing insufficient time for an appropriately detailed review to take place.
Rejected proposal 134574. There’s no time to review this and the 18 other proposals in the same batch properly over Xmas eve, Xmas and Boxing Day. This is a non-critical proposal.
Replaces cordoned node gbavy with node pbken on subnet pzp6e.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard TY2 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 proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node gbavy from the TY2 Data Center in Tokyo, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node pbken from Germany, without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info, also it can be checked here.
This proposal replaces node mh6ne which appears in the dashboard as “Status: Offline”. 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 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.
TLDR: LGTM. Replaces an offline node with a healthy one, with no change to decentralisation stats. The node is being replaced by one in the same data center and node provider.
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 api.ip2location.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.
*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.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node mh6ne from Singapore with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 6df7i from same DC and NP without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
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.
Replaces dead node mh6ne, Dashboard Status: Offline, with node 6df7i on subnet pzp6e.
There was no impact in the decentralization coefficients.
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.
VOTE: I’ll consider and vote tomorrow… YES (but follow-up proposal needed, due to the degraded node)
TLDR: 2 offline nodes replaced with 1 up unassigned node and 1 degraded unassigned node. I would consider rejecting this due to the degrade node being brought into the subnet, but given that the two nodes being replaced are even worse (they’re offline) this proposal is an improvement.
IC Target Topology metrics remain unchanged by this proposal. There are some country discrepancies, but involving nodes that are unaffected by the proposal (something to revisit).
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
9.63 km
7870.256 km
19461.421 km
PROPOSED
9.63 km
7935.417 km (+0.8%)
19461.421 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
6
25
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
25
34
34
34
34
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)
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.
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.
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.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes in subnet pzp6e, 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.
I note, as pointed out by @MalithHatananchchige , that one of the replacement nodes pqcqa appears as Degraded | IC_PrometheusTargetMissing. Nonetheless, the current proposal should at least increase the number of working nodes in the subnet by 1, and in either case an additional proposal will be needed to restore it to full functioning unless the issue with this node’s data centre is rectified in the interim.
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.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces 2 dead Offline status node rq2bj from the ES1 DC in Barcelona and dead Offline status node rzmf2 from the NY1 DC in New York, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node vevca from Dallas and
unassigned but Degraded status node pqcqa from Barcelona ES1 DC, that seems to have some issue at the moment given that out of 4 nodes 2 are offline and 2 are degraded, without any change to decentralization.
Given the fact that one node is healthy I am inclinded to adopt the proposal and follow up with the second replacement.
The subnet has only 30 GB State and 2 offline nodes out of the 34.
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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
6
3, IN
3
25
City
10
2, HongKong
1
32
Data Center
12
1
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
6
3, IN
3
25
City
10
2, HongKong
1
32
Data Center
12
1
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
1
34
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.
The proposal replaces two dead nodes on subnet pzp6e:
dead node rq2bjDashboard Status: Offline and dead node rzmf2Dashboard Status: Offline
with nodes:
node pqcqaDashboard Status: Degraded and node vevcaDashboard Status: Awaiting
Even tough node pqcqa is degraded this proposal still removes one dead node from the subnet. This means that a second proposal is needed in order to replace this node with a healthy one.
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.
Issues:
Passes: