replacing u3ahx, fi2eu: We have found no evidence that justifies the offboarding of node providers. However, as a precautionary measure, and to allow more time for discussion around potential node provider collusion, we are submitting a selected set of node swap proposals for critical subnets. Please note that this may slightly reduce the Nakamoto coefficients.
VOTE: NO (note that this proposal has already executed)
TLDR: One of the nodes being added to this subnet is actually offline. I’m not sure if it was online when the proposal was raised. It therefore objectively worsens the health of the subnet.
This proposal was motivated by unsubstantiated concerns of collusion risk. Note that while the motion mentions me and links to a post that I created - I was not personally responsible for the primary claims in this motion . This Subnet Membership proposal errs on the side of caution by moving a few of the mentioned NPs out of the Fiduciary subnet while further discussion takes place (other proposals have been raised for the NNS and II subnets).
Country Discrepancies (4)
Most discrepancies are minor in terms of distance, but the Canada-US one is huge, which is surprising given hat ipinfo.io utilises probe networks for better geolocation accuracy. The node in question isn’t directly affected by this proposal though. Something to revisit…
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
8034.722 km
19461.421 km
PROPOSED
0 km
7989.507 km (-0.6%)
19461.421 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
Node Operator
EXISTING
6
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
24
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.
TLDR:
As there is an ongoing investigation in regard to collusion, safely removing from the essential subnets. This, however, does not mean NPs are colluding; I would rather take it as an audit. Not very happy with the fast adopt as there is already an offline node that was proposed | ujv74… causing another proposal to be submitted again.
ISSUE: Node ujv74… is 'OFLLINE' status as required for addition.
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.
Vote: REJECTED Reason:
This creates a bad precedent, also how can we be sure that the nodes that are picked to replace the “flagged” ones by Adam this time won’t turn up in the following days as “flagged” as well, he is still working hard on the list. What then, remove all nodes and just have Dfinity owned ones that meet the criteria of safe ?
" We have found no evidence that justifies the offboarding of node providers. "
The MOTIVATION : "as a precautionary measure, and to allow more time for discussion around potential node provider collusion, we are submitting a selected set of node swap proposals for critical subnets. Please note that this may slightly reduce the Nakamoto coefficients. "
The proposal replaces 3 healthy Active status nodes with the 3 listed nodes, one of them went offline after being picked but at this point seems like an offline node can’t participate in collusion so it’s fine.
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.
TLDR : Replaces 2 healthy nodes with 1 healthy and 1 offline node and makes decentralization slightly worse. I would vote to adopt if it weren’t for one node being offline.
1 Nakamoto parameters city: HongKong above max identical count!!!
Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient is worse than current!!!
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
6
3
25
City
10
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
1
32
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
24
City
9
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul, 2->Zurich
1
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
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.
SyT - Servicios y Telecomunicaciones S.A. → Telia DC
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
24
City
9
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul, 2->Zurich
1
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
24
City
9
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul, 2->Zurich
1
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
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.
This proposal replaces 1 node 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.
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.
TLDR: Replaces an offline node with an unassigned node. Formal IC Target Topology metrics are unchanged by this proposal, however there’s a slightly reduction in the average distance between nodes, and a higher level of clustering within Europe. Good that the offline node is being replaced with a healthy one though.
Country Discrepancies (4)
One of these discrepancies is very large (despite the fact that ipinfo.io uses a probe network for increased accuracy). The nodes in question aren’t affected by this proposal though. Just something to take note of and revisit.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
8034.722 km
19461.421 km
PROPOSED
0 km
7654 km (-4.7%)
19320.419 km (-0.7%)
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
Node Operator
EXISTING
6
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
24
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.
TLDR:
The proposal replaces the offline node in Caba (South Africa).
No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed, and decentralization stats remain the same. I vote to adopt
Node 5resh…: Health check passed. Node 5resh…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node zgeaf…: 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.
Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node 5resh from Caba, Argentina with
unassigned healthy Awaiting status node zgeaf from Tallinn, Estonia without any change to decentralization.
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.
Replaces dead node 5reshDashboard Status: Offline with node zgeafDashboard Status: Awaiting on subnet pzp6e.
The proposal makes a necessary replacement by removing the dead node.
There is no impact in the 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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
24
City
9
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul, 2->Zurich
/
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
24
City
9
2->HongKong, 2->Riga, 2->Seoul
/
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
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.
TLDR: Replaces an offline node with an unassigned node. IC Target Topology metrics are unchanged. LGTM
Country Discrepancies (4)
There’s a big distance discrepancy here for one of the nodes, however it’s not affected by this proposal. This is something I need to come back and revisit at some point when I have more time.
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.
Replaces dead node ujv74Dashboard Status: Offline with healthy node 3beeqDashboard Status: Awaiting on subnet pzp6e.
The proposal makes a necessary replacement by removing the dead node.
There is no impact in the 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.
TLDR:
The proposal replaces offline nodes in Zurich (Europe).
No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed and decentralization stats remain the same. I vote to adopt
Node ujv74…: Health check passed. Node ujv74…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node 3beeq…: 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.
Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node ujv74 from Zurich
with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 3beeq from Riga with a slight improvement 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.
Issues:
ISSUE: Node 
