Subnet Management - qxesv (Application)

Proposal 135995 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: This proposal replaces 2 nodes - the first due to NP linkage, and the second as a general target topology improvement.

This subnet is currently in violation of the IC Target Topology, with 2 nodes in the same country. This proposal reduces that count to 1, aligning with IC Target Topology requirements.

Additinoally, George Bassadone is an NP but is also represented by the GeoNodes NP (both NPs currently have a node in this subnet). This proposal removes the George Bassadone node in order to more rigorously comply with the IC Target Topology (specify one node per independent NP, per subnet).

Country Discrepancies (1)

Distance is within a margin of error, so can probably be ignored.

Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
ctwsk Brussels Belgium France
Decentralisation Stats

Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 1.636 km 6751.3 km 18504.433 km
PROPOSED 305.949 km (+18601%) 8039.051 km (+19.1%) 18504.433 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). :+1:

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 3 12 13 13 13 13
PROPOSED 4 (+25%) 13 (+7.7%) 13 13 13 13

This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity. :+1:

Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →

Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
EXISTING 6 2 1 1 1 1
PROPOSED 5 (-16.67%) 1 (-50%) 1 1 1 1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 135700

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.

Node Changes
Action Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
Remove ctqez UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 4 (zh4) Nine.Ch Tomahawk.vc paxme
Remove sspbf UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
Add ddbl6 UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: North America Canada Vancouver (bc1) Cyxtera Blockchain Development Labs feb2q
Add u3bgl UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 1 (jb1) Teraco Karel Frank 2rzvs
Other Nodes
Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
ctwsk UP :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Brussels (br1) Digital Realty Allusion mjeqs
bs2f6 UP :bar_chart: Europe Switzerland Zurich 2 (zh2) Everyware DFINITY Stiftung db7fe
fvy7i UP :bar_chart: North America Costa Rica San José 1 (cr1) Navegalo GeoNodes LLC eqv2i
x3rso UP :bar_chart: Europe Germany Frankfurt 2 (fr2) Equinix Virtual Hive Ltd 3nu7r
lyhuu UP :bar_chart: Asia Hong Kong HongKong 1 (hk1) Unicom Pindar Technology Limited vzsx4
cxuqe UP :bar_chart: Asia India New Delhi 1 (nd1) Marvelous Web3 DC Marvelous Web3 ri4lg
pmlsj UP :bar_chart: Asia Korea (the Republic of) Seoul 1 (sl1) Megazone Cloud Neptune Partners ukji3
ys5ct UP :bar_chart: Europe Romania Bucharest (bu1) M247 Iancu Aurel c5ssg
ii5t4 UP :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore 2 (sg2) Telin OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital qffmn
7tayv UP :bar_chart: Europe Slovenia Maribor (mb1) Posita.si Fractal Labs AG 3xiew
4vzqk UP :bar_chart: North America United States of America (the) Dallas (dl1) Flexential 87m Neuron, LLC mw64v


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.