Proposal 136668 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: NO
TLDR: Proposes to replace a struggling node with an unassigned node, however at the time of this review the unassigned node is offline while the struggling node is online (and is not currently classified as degraded). It’s had some failed blocks recently though, as can be seen on the Node Provider Rewards dashboard. It’s certainly fairing a lot better than the proposed replacement node though.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 305.949 km | 8039.051 km | 18504.433 km |
| PROPOSED | 305.949 km | 7194.223 km (-10.5%) | 16471.597 km (-11%) |
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 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 4 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
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 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 6 (+20%) | 1 | 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)
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Add | ihom5 | DOWN | |
Europe | Isle of Man | Douglas 2 (im2) | Continent8 | Zarety LLC | ylbc3 |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ctwsk | UP | |
Europe | Belgium | Brussels (br1) | Digital Realty | Allusion | mjeqs |
| ddbl6 | UP | |
North America | Canada | Vancouver (bc1) | Cyxtera | Blockchain Development Labs | feb2q |
| bs2f6 | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 2 (zh2) | Everyware | DFINITY Stiftung | db7fe |
| x3rso | UP | |
Europe | Germany | Frankfurt 2 (fr2) | Equinix | Virtual Hive Ltd | 3nu7r |
| lyhuu | UP | |
Asia | Hong Kong | HongKong 1 (hk1) | Unicom | Pindar Technology Limited | vzsx4 |
| cxuqe | UP | |
Asia | India | New Delhi 1 (nd1) | Marvelous Web3 DC | Marvelous Web3 | ri4lg |
| pmlsj | UP | |
Asia | Korea (the Republic of) | Seoul 1 (sl1) | Megazone Cloud | Neptune Partners | ukji3 |
| ys5ct | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| ii5t4 | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore 2 (sg2) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | qffmn |
| 7tayv | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
| 4vzqk | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Dallas (dl1) | Flexential | 87m Neuron, LLC | mw64v |
| u3bgl | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Gauteng 1 (jb1) | Teraco | Karel Frank | 2rzvs |
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.