This proposal replaces node ujv74 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 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: Riga node is down for days.
Navegalo node is not dead as mentioned in proposal - has some failed blocks. We can conduct that motivation is also slightly increased decentralization - unique countries 24->25, cities 31->32.
Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient is better than current.
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->Riga, 2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
NA
31
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.20
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
25
City
10
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
NA
32
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 2 nodes in subnet pzp6e, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP”, but one of which appears in the Node Provider Rewards tool as having a 100% block failure rate for most days over the past month, and the other of which has had a variable failure rate of up to 7% over the past 10 days.
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, API Boundary Node 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.
The proposal replaces 2 nodes on subnet pzp6e:
Removes nodes 3beeqDashboard Status: Active and 7muazDashboard Status: Active.
Adds nodes rtjw5Dashboard Status: Awaiting and np33oDashboard Status: Awaiting.
Looking at Daily Performance of each node we have that node 3beeq is in fact having performance issues and can be considered dead since we have several days with a Daily Failure Rate of 100% as verified in Node Provider Rewards
But for node 7muaz this is a misrepresentation since the proposal advertises this node as dead but even looking as far back as the beginning of this year there hasn’t been a day where this node had a Daily Failure Rate higher than the threshold of 10% that starts reducing rewards. The highest Daily Failure Rate this node had was 7.5% on the May 9th, followed by a 6% and then onwards is 1-2%. This can be verified in Node Provider Rewards
Since this change doesn’t affect the NP rewards for the healthy node and the proposal improves the area coefficient by 11%, I have voted to adopt.
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:
This proposal removes 2 node(s) from Riga 3, San José 1 and adds 2 replacement node(s) in Douglas 2, Tel Aviv 1. 3beeq… even though is active status is missing blocks at 62% failure rate. 7muaz… seems to be recovered and active. As decentralization stats increase I vote to adopt as there no issues on the replacement nodes
Node np33o…: Ping test passed with no packet loss.
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: The nodes that have been struggling recently (described as dead in the proposal, which was presumably the case when the proposal was submitted) are being replaced by two unassigned nodes.
One of the replacement nodes belongs to a new node provider for which there is a degree of controversy. At the very least, the Zarety LLC node provider should be considered to belong to an NP cluster that includes Rivonia Holdings LLC and Blue Ant LLC. Given that neither of these node providers currently have nodes in this subnet, I consider this proposal adoptable.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
5.14 km
7648.734 km
19320.419 km
PROPOSED
12.811 km (+149.3%)
7394.292 km (-3.3%)
19320.419 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
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)
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 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.
Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node 3beeq from Riga and
dead Offline status node 7muaz from San Jose
with unassigned healthy Awaiting status nodes without slight improvement to decentralization.
Both nodes were offline at the time of proposal, even as they came back online they still needed to be replaced.
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.
Motivation:
The node operator 2psns (under NP izmhk) has 7 nodes in total but currently does not have active nodes in any subnet. To gain insights into the stability of the nodes of this node operator, we propose to add one of the operator’s nodes to subnet pzp6e.
Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet pzp6e-ekpqk-3c5x7-2h6so-njoeq-mt45d-h3h6c-q3mxf-vpeq5-fk5o7-yae:
This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet pzp6e, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP”, for the purpose of examining the stability of another node operator’s nodes. 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, API Boundary Node 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.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.20
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
25
City
10
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
NA
32
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.20
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
25
City
10
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
NA
32
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.
The proposal aims to get insights into the stability of the NO 2psns’s nodes since this node currently doesn’t have any active nodes.
The decentralization metrics remain unchanged.
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: Claim checks out. Replaces an assigned online nodes with an unassigned online node.
Motivation: The node operator 2psns (under NP izmhk) has 7 nodes in total but currently does not have active nodes in any subnet
You can verify this by querying the IC API, and searching for 2psns. 7 hits, and if you jump to each one you’ll see the node is not assigned to a subnet.
Geographic decentralisation is slightly increased. The formal IC Target Topology is respected.
As a side note, both the current and the proposed topology contains 2 nodes from the 6sq7t+eatbv+otzuu+vegae cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
12.811 km
7394.292 km
19320.419 km
PROPOSED
12.811 km
7415.814 km (+0.3%)
19320.419 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 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.
VOTE: YES TLDR:
This proposal removes 1 node(s) from Dallas and adds 1 replacement node(s) in Phoenix. Main reason for removing an active node is :
To allocate to NP izmhk who currently does not have active nodes in any subnet. To gain insights into the stability of the nodes of this node operator. This information is valid, Vote to adpot.
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 healthy online node vevca from Texas,US, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node krw4e from Arizona,US without any change to decentralization.
The motivation being “To gain insights into the stability of these nodes fron NO 2psns of NP MI Servers”.
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.
hkcolo → SyT - Servicios y Telecomunicaciones S.A.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.20
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
25
City
10
2->HongKong, 2->Seoul
NA
32
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.40
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
3
25
City
11
2->Seoul
NA
33
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: The proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the rbn2y+g7dkt+acqus cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
As a side note, both the existing and proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the 6sq7t+eatbv+otzuu+vegae cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
12.811 km
7415.814 km
19320.419 km
PROPOSED
12.811 km
7627.879 km (+2.9%)
19461.421 km (+0.7%)
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 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.
The handover document can be found here and follows the requirements stated here
In which Data Center these excess node machines will be operated
Declaration that both NPs do not have any majority control in each other’s operations
A confirmation that you have deployed two nodes with IPv4 and a domain name in each DC(s)
The date when these nodes will start earning the new reward values
Signed by both NPs involved in the transaction
The first step in this process is to offboard the nodes in question from their subnets, so that they can be relocated in this case, and redeployed under their new Node Operator.
Since NP Decentralized Entities Foundation is planning to have all this 8 nodes in Barcelona, we can expect a later proposal for adding a new Node Operator.
The decentralization metrics remain unchanged.
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.
