Subnet Management - qxesv (Application)

[aligatorr89]

I will vote YES too, since Dfinity has to have 1 node in subnet for recovery. Ideally it wouldn’t decrease decentralization, but will give it an exception this time.

[timk11]

@sat

Having a DFINITY-owned node is from our point of view a lot stronger requirement than not having 2 nodes from a single country, since there needs to be a DFINITY-owned node in a subnet to perform subnet recovery

That’s a good point and I agree with it now you’ve mentioned it. It might be good to manually edit the proposal text in cases like this to ensure any details like this are included. At the moment there’s a high volume of proposals across subnet and node topics so having as much of the necessary details within the proposal or linked within would be very helpful.

[wpb]

Proposal Review — Wenzel | CodeGov

Topic: Subnet Management
Proposal: 135540
Vote: ADOPT
Title: Replace a node in subnet qxesv
Comments: This proposal was adopted by the CodeGov known neuron. I noticed that there are only 12 hours left in the voting period and CodeGov has not reached consensus on this proposal yet. Hence, I have cast the vote manually after taking into account the review and follow up comments posted by @timk11 as well as the comments and high quality reviews posted by DFINITY and the CO.DELTA team. The logical choice based on this information is to adopt. Great job everyone.

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.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #135540 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted
Reason:

@sat

Having a DFINITY-owned node is from our point of view a lot stronger requirement than not having 2 nodes from a single country, since there needs to be a DFINITY-owned node in a subnet to perform subnet recovery. So without one, we can’t recover the subnet if needed for any reason.

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.

[DRE-Team]

A new proposal with ID 135995 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace nodes in subnet qxesv

Motivation:

Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:

• 1 additional node would result in: equal decentralization across all features
• 2 additional nodes would result in: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.2146 to 2.3219

Based on the calculated potential impact, replacing 2 additional nodes to improve optimization

Note: the heuristic for node replacement relies not only on the Nakamoto coefficient but also on other factors that iteratively optimize network topology.
Due to this, Nakamoto coefficients may not directly increase in every node replacement proposal.
Code for comparing decentralization of two candidate subnet topologies is at:
dre/rs/decentralization/src/nakamoto/mod.rs at 79066127f58c852eaf4adda11610e815a426878c · dfinity/dre · GitHub

Note: the information below is provided for your convenience. Please independently verify the decentralization changes rather than relying solely on this summary.
Here is an explaination of how decentralization is currently calculated,
and there are also instructions for performing what-if analysis if you are wondering if another node would have improved decentralization more.

Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet qxesv-zoxpm-vc64m-zxguk-5sj74-35vrb-tbgwg-pcird-5gr26-62oxl-cae:

    node_provider: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
      data_center: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
data_center_owner: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
             area: 4.00 -> 5.00   (+25%)
          country: 4.00 -> 5.00   (+25%)

Mean Nakamoto comparison: 4.67 → 5.00 (+7%)

Overall replacement impact: (gets better) the average log2 of Nakamoto Coefficients across all features increases from 2.2146 to 2.3219

Impact on business rules penalties: 10 → 0

Details

Nodes removed:

• sspbf-fne25-z7m5y-imq3z-ihf3v-qbyhd-ohrqp-zzfk3-dbuu3-zs7se-pqe [health: healthy]
• ctqez-oqvmf-kkwto-wlehz-grh5a-l7enx-7e7ds-hcn75-mpdj5-pujdj-eae [health: healthy]

Nodes added:

• ddbl6-37efl-b75e4-jpfsb-zioa6-ilvzo-tldwy-fnbhm-nbuoy-66cza-uqe [health: healthy]
• u3bgl-kw7h5-djuod-zigyy-xp3ux-l6y3z-e223a-wmaki-i3kbh-fmoib-sae [health: healthy]

    node_provider                                                              data_center            data_center_owner            area                        country        
    -------------                                                              -----------            -----------------            ----                        -------        
    4dibr-2alzr-h6kva-bvwn2-yqgsl-o577t-od46o-v275p-a2zov-tcw4f-eae       1    bc1          0 -> 1    Cloud9             1 -> 0    British Columbia  0 -> 1    BE            1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe       1    br1               1    Cyxtera            0 -> 1    Brussels Capital       1    CA       0 -> 1
    6sq7t-knkul-fko6h-xzvnf-ktbvr-jhx7r-hapzr-kjlek-whugy-zt6ip-xqe       1    bu1               1    Digital Realty          1    Bucuresti              1    CH       2 -> 1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae  0 -> 1    cr1               1    Equinix                 1    Gauteng           0 -> 1    CR            1
    7uioy-xitfw-yqcko-5gpya-3lpsw-dw7zt-dyyyf-wfqif-jvi76-fdbkg-cqe       1    dl1               1    Everyware               1    Hesse                  1    DE            1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    fr2               1    Flexential              1    HongKong               1    GE       1 -> 0
    eipr5-izbom-neyqh-s3ec2-52eww-cyfpg-qfomg-3dpwj-4pffh-34xcu-7qe       1    hk1               1    M247                    1    Maribor                1    HK            1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    jb1          0 -> 1    Marvelous Web3 DC       1    New Delhi              1    IN            1
    r3yjn-kthmg-pfgmb-2fngg-5c7d7-t6kqg-wi37r-j7gy6-iee64-kjdja-jae       1    mb1               1    Megazone Cloud          1    San Jose               1    KR            1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    nd1               1    Navegalo                1    Seoul                  1    RO            1
    ucjqj-jmbj3-rs4aq-ekzpw-ltjs3-zrcma-t6r3t-m5wxc-j5yrj-unwoj-mae  1 -> 0    sg2               1    Nine.Ch            1 -> 0    Singapore              1    SG            1
    unqqg-no4b2-vbyad-ytik2-t3vly-3e57q-aje2t-sjb5l-bd4ke-chggn-uqe  0 -> 1    sl1               1    Posita.si               1    Tbilisi           1 -> 0    SI            1
    vegae-c4chr-aetfj-7gzuh-c23sx-u2paz-vmvbn-bcage-pu7lu-mptnn-eqe  1 -> 0    tb1          1 -> 0    Telin                   1    Texas                  1    US            1
    wdjjk-blh44-lxm74-ojj43-rvgf4-j5rie-nm6xs-xvnuv-j3ptn-25t4v-6ae       1    zh2               1    Teraco             0 -> 1    Zurich            2 -> 1    ZA       0 -> 1
    wdnqm-clqti-im5yf-iapio-avjom-kyppl-xuiza-oaz6z-smmts-52wyg-5ae       1    zh4          1 -> 0    Unicom                  1                                               

Business rules check results before the membership change:

• Node provider cluster 1 (6sq7t, vegae, eatbv) has 2 nodes in the subnet

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 135995 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Improves decentralization.

• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient is better than current.

Node Changes 2 removed, 2 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
ctqez-oqvmf-kkwto-wlehz-grh5a-l7enx-7e7ds-hcn75-mpdj5-pujdj-eae → ddbl6-37efl-b75e4-jpfsb-zioa6-ilvzo-tldwy-fnbhm-nbuoy-66cza-uqe	UP → UNASSIGNED	CH → CA	Zurich → British Columbia	Tomahawk.vc → Blockchain Development Labs	zh4 → bc1	Nine.Ch → Cyxtera
sspbf-fne25-z7m5y-imq3z-ihf3v-qbyhd-ohrqp-zzfk3-dbuu3-zs7se-pqe → u3bgl-kw7h5-djuod-zigyy-xp3ux-l6y3z-e223a-wmaki-i3kbh-fmoib-sae	UP → UNASSIGNED	GE → ZA	Tbilisi → Gauteng	George Bassadone → Karel Frank	tb1 → jb1	Cloud9 → Teraco

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 4.60

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	4		2	12
City	4	2->Zurich	1	12
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		2	13
City	5		1	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

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.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 135995 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: ADOPT

The proposal replaces 2 nodes on subnet qxesv:
nodes sspbf Dashboard Status: Active and ctqez Dashboard Status: Active with nodes ddbl6 Dashboard Status: Awaiting and u3bgl Dashboard Status: Awaiting.

The reason for the proposal is that the node sspbf being removed is controlled by NP vegae that is part of a Node provider cluster with NPs 6sq7t and eatbv. Since NP 6sq7t has a node in this subnet and per the IC Target Topology we have a limit of 1 node per NP in a subnet (two NPs part of a cluster of NPs count as 1) the node is removed.

The proposal also takes the opportunity to make one more replacement in order to improve the decentralization metrics area and country by 25% each.

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.

[Lorimer]

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).

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.

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		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 4 (zh4)	Nine.Ch	Tomahawk.vc	paxme
Remove	sspbf	UP		Asia	Georgia	Tbilisi 1 (tb1)	Cloud9	George Bassadone	yhfy4
Add	ddbl6	UNASSIGNED		North America	Canada	Vancouver (bc1)	Cyxtera	Blockchain Development Labs	feb2q
Add	u3bgl	UNASSIGNED		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		Europe	Belgium	Brussels (br1)	Digital Realty	Allusion	mjeqs
bs2f6	UP		Europe	Switzerland	Zurich 2 (zh2)	Everyware	DFINITY Stiftung	db7fe
fvy7i	UP		North America	Costa Rica	San José 1 (cr1)	Navegalo	GeoNodes LLC	eqv2i
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

---

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.

[timk11]

Proposal 135995 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Adopt

This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet qxesv, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP”, for the presumed reason of preventing a self-declared node provider cluster from having more than 1 node in the subnet, along with an additional node in order to improve overall topology.. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.

@DRE-Team @sat @alexu This has now been clarified in earlier forum discussions, but if you could, please remember to include a reason under “Motivation:” and a forum link for context in NP cluster-related proposals.

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.

[MalithHatananchchige]

Proposal 135995 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR:
The proposal replaces active nodes in Tbilisi (Asia) and Zurich(EU). Similarly as per previous proposal this is to remove active node which is owned by same NP as a new business cluster rule mentioned in the proposal. The second node replacement with the business rule change improves decentralization stats.

No issues were found in the nodes or locations proposed, and decentralization stats improve. I vote to adopt

Provider Changes

Removed	Added
George Bassadone	Blockchain Development Labs
Tomahawk.vc	Karel Frank

Location Changes

Removed	Added
Asia, Tbilisi 1	North America, Vancouver
Europe, Zurich 4	Africa, Gauteng 1

Nodes Removed 2

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
sspbf…	UP	George Bassadone	tb1	Tbilisi 1
ctqez…	UP	Tomahawk.vc	zh4	Zurich 4

Nodes Added 2

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
ddbl6…	UNASSIGNED	Blockchain Development Labs	bc1	Vancouver
u3bgl…	UNASSIGNED	Karel Frank	jb1	Gauteng 1

Passes:

Node sspbf…: Remove from Subnet check passed.
Node ctqez…: Remove from Subnet check passed.
Node ddbl6…: Replacement Status check passed.
Node u3bgl…: 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.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #135995 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Adopted

Reason: Without providing any MOTIVATION the proposal removes one NP cluster 1 healthy Active node sspbf from Tbilisi Georgia and another node ctqez from Zurich from NP Tomahawk.vc that most likely will be part of the 2nd cluster, replacing them with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node ddbl6 from Canada and unassigned healthy Awaiting status node u3bgl from South Africa with a slight improvement 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.

[DRE-Team]

A new proposal with ID 136668 has been submitted, please take a look.

Click here to open proposal details

Replace a node in subnet qxesv

Motivation:

• replacing dead node fvy7i

Calculated potential impact on subnet decentralization if replacing:

• 1 additional node would result in: equal decentralization across all features

Based on the calculated potential impact, not replacing additional nodes to improve optimization.

Note: the information below is provided for your convenience. Please independently verify the decentralization changes rather than relying solely on this summary.
Here is an explaination of how decentralization is currently calculated,
and there are also instructions for performing what-if analysis if you are wondering if another node would have improved decentralization more.

Decentralization Nakamoto coefficient changes for subnet qxesv-zoxpm-vc64m-zxguk-5sj74-35vrb-tbgwg-pcird-5gr26-62oxl-cae:

    node_provider: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
      data_center: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
data_center_owner: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
             area: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)
          country: 5.00 -> 5.00    (+0%)

Mean Nakamoto comparison: 5.00 → 5.00 (+0%)

Overall replacement impact: equal decentralization across all features

Details

Nodes removed:

• fvy7i-ux7is-cuvfm-2n2zh-5lpb4-oe2vz-bfnhz-oi5s5-jkzhk-phlj2-gqe [health: dead]

Nodes added:

• ihom5-j3jpq-6a6k3-rjajg-hualw-yhs3j-k7xot-hg2qh-ud3ix-rgvte-zqe [health: healthy]

    node_provider                                                              data_center            data_center_owner            area                        country        
    -------------                                                              -----------            -----------------            ----                        -------        
    4dibr-2alzr-h6kva-bvwn2-yqgsl-o577t-od46o-v275p-a2zov-tcw4f-eae       1    bc1               1    Continent8         0 -> 1    British Columbia       1    BE            1
    6nbcy-kprg6-ax3db-kh3cz-7jllk-oceyh-jznhs-riguq-fvk6z-6tsds-rqe       1    br1               1    Cyxtera                 1    Brussels Capital       1    CA            1
    6sq7t-knkul-fko6h-xzvnf-ktbvr-jhx7r-hapzr-kjlek-whugy-zt6ip-xqe  1 -> 0    bu1               1    Digital Realty          1    Bucuresti              1    CH            1
    7at4h-nhtvt-a4s55-jigss-wr2ha-ysxkn-e6w7x-7ggnm-qd3d5-ry66r-cae       1    cr1          1 -> 0    Equinix                 1    Douglas           0 -> 1    CR       1 -> 0
    7uioy-xitfw-yqcko-5gpya-3lpsw-dw7zt-dyyyf-wfqif-jvi76-fdbkg-cqe       1    dl1               1    Everyware               1    Gauteng                1    DE            1
    bvcsg-3od6r-jnydw-eysln-aql7w-td5zn-ay5m6-sibd2-jzojt-anwag-mqe       1    fr2               1    Flexential              1    Hesse                  1    HK            1
    eipr5-izbom-neyqh-s3ec2-52eww-cyfpg-qfomg-3dpwj-4pffh-34xcu-7qe       1    hk1               1    M247                    1    HongKong               1    IM       0 -> 1
    glrjs-2dbzh-owbdd-fpp5e-eweoz-nsuto-e3jmk-tl42c-wem4f-qfpfa-qqe  0 -> 1    im2          0 -> 1    Marvelous Web3 DC       1    Maribor                1    IN            1
    i7dto-bgkj2-xo5dx-cyrb7-zkk5y-q46eh-gz6iq-qkgyc-w4qte-scgtb-6ae       1    jb1               1    Megazone Cloud          1    New Delhi              1    KR            1
    r3yjn-kthmg-pfgmb-2fngg-5c7d7-t6kqg-wi37r-j7gy6-iee64-kjdja-jae       1    mb1               1    Navegalo           1 -> 0    San Jose          1 -> 0    RO            1
    rbn2y-6vfsb-gv35j-4cyvy-pzbdu-e5aum-jzjg6-5b4n5-vuguf-ycubq-zae       1    nd1               1    Posita.si               1    Seoul                  1    SG            1
    unqqg-no4b2-vbyad-ytik2-t3vly-3e57q-aje2t-sjb5l-bd4ke-chggn-uqe       1    sg2               1    Telin                   1    Singapore              1    SI            1
    wdjjk-blh44-lxm74-ojj43-rvgf4-j5rie-nm6xs-xvnuv-j3ptn-25t4v-6ae       1    sl1               1    Teraco                  1    Texas                  1    US            1
    wdnqm-clqti-im5yf-iapio-avjom-kyppl-xuiza-oaz6z-smmts-52wyg-5ae       1    zh2               1    Unicom                  1    Zurich                 1    ZA            1

[aligatorr89]

Proposal 136668 Review | aligatorr - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR: Similar (but worse) situation like in other proposals from this batch. Current node fvy7i has some underperformance, but replacing node is DOWN and in im2 dc which has some issues. I don’t see how it can be good for network. Straight rejecting this.

• ihom5-j3jpq-6a6k3-rjajg-hualw-yhs3j-k7xot-hg2qh-ud3ix-rgvte-zqe nodes that are added are not UNASSIGNED!!!
• Proposed topology Nakamoto Coefficient stayed the same as on current topology.

Node Changes 1 removed, 1 added

Node ID	Status	Country	City	Node Provider	Data Center	Data Center Owner
fvy7i-ux7is-cuvfm-2n2zh-5lpb4-oe2vz-bfnhz-oi5s5-jkzhk-phlj2-gqe → ihom5-j3jpq-6a6k3-rjajg-hualw-yhs3j-k7xot-hg2qh-ud3ix-rgvte-zqe	UP → DOWN	CR → IM	San Jose → Douglas	GeoNodes LLC → Zarety LLC	cr1 → im2	Navegalo → Continent8

Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		2	13
City	5		NA	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00

Attribute	Nakamoto Coefficient	Identical attribute values	Max allowed identical values	Unique Counts
Country	5		2	13
City	5		NA	13
Data Center	5		1	13
Data Center Owner	5		1	13
Node Provider ID	5		1	13

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.

[timk11]

Proposal 136668 | Tim - CodeGov

Vote: Reject

This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet qxesv, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP” and showing a temporary increase in the block failure rate in the Node Provider Rewards tool that seems now to have improved to around 0.3% or less.

As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters would be 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.

[MalithHatananchchige]

Proposal 136668 Review | Malith H - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: NO

TLDR:
This proposal removes 1 node(s) from San José 1 and adds 1 replacement node(s) in Douglas 2. The node that is stated unhealthy fvy7i… is in active status, has good ping, and no missing blocks for the past month. Vote to reject

Found 2 issues that need attention before voting.

Subnet Details

Property	Value
ID	qxesv…
Type	verified_application
Memory Usage	0.37 GB
Running Canisters	142
Description	N/A

Provider Changes

Removed	Added
GeoNodes LLC	Zarety LLC

Location Changes

Removed	Added
North America, San José 1	Europe, Douglas 2

Nodes Removed 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
fvy7i…	UP	GeoNodes LLC	cr1	San José 1

Nodes Added 1

Node ID	Status	Provider	Data Center	Location
ihom5…	DOWN	Zarety LLC	im2	Douglas 2

Ping Measurement Results

Removed Nodes Ping Status

Node fvy7i…

Probe Location	Status	Packets Sent	Packets Lost	Min RTT	Avg RTT	Max RTT
EU - DE	OK	16	0	169.164ms	169.467ms	171.024ms
EU - FI	OK	16	0	180.28ms	180.644ms	181.375ms
EU - DE	OK	16	0	161.31ms	161.769ms	164.898ms
EU - DE	OK	16	0	159.65ms	161.365ms	179.254ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	67.409ms	67.934ms	70.074ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	79.998ms	80.255ms	80.412ms
NA - CA	OK	16	0	86.975ms	88.492ms	107.286ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	81.196ms	81.857ms	87.118ms
AS - HK	OK	16	0	283.502ms	284.301ms	289.551ms
AS - RU	OK	16	0	203.249ms	203.602ms	204.483ms

Summary:

• Total Probes: 12
• Failed Probes: 0
• Average Latency: 168.61ms

Added Nodes Ping Status

Node ihom5…

Probe Location	Status	Packets Sent	Packets Lost	Min RTT	Avg RTT	Max RTT
EU - FI	OK	16	0	47.183ms	47.281ms	47.376ms
EU - DE	OK	16	0	34.027ms	34.172ms	35.103ms
EU - DE	OK	16	0	28.939ms	29.028ms	29.299ms
EU - DE	OK	16	0	28.598ms	28.688ms	28.775ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	94.021ms	94.105ms	94.279ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	114.065ms	114.248ms	115.111ms
NA - CA	OK	16	0	90.68ms	90.782ms	91.191ms
NA - US	OK	16	0	178.755ms	190.813ms	197.006ms
AS - HK	OK	16	0	209.322ms	209.401ms	209.462ms
AS - SG	OK	16	0	166.593ms	166.854ms	167.243ms
AS - RU	OK	16	0	61.674ms	61.787ms	62.284ms
AS - JP	OK	16	0	268.726ms	268.986ms	269.248ms

Summary:

• Total Probes: 12
• Failed Probes: 0
• Average Latency: 111.35ms

Issues:

ISSUE: Node fvy7i… is not degraded or dead as claimed.

ISSUE: Node ihom5… is not in 'UNASSIGNED' 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.

[LaCosta]

Proposal 136668 – LaCosta | CodeGov

Vote: REJECT

The proposal replaces a cordoned node on subnet qxesv:

• removes “dead” node fvy7i Dashboard Status: Active.
• adds node ihom5 Dashboard Status: Offline.

Although the proposal summary advertises the replaced node fvy7i as dead, not only does this node show up in the Dashboard as Active, but also when looking at the Node Provider Rewards the node has a maximum Daily Failure Rate of 5% with other levels being between 0-1%.

In contrast, the proposed node ihom5 is Offline

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.

[Lorimer]

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	fvy7i	UP		North America	Costa Rica	San José 1 (cr1)	Navegalo	GeoNodes LLC	eqv2i
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.

[pietrodimarco]

Thank you, @Lorimer, for your review! The proposal was issued after upgrading the hostos version of fvy7i.
The node took approximately two hours to come back online in a healthy state, but it eventually did. Given this, I fully support rejecting the proposal.

[ZackDS]

Proposal #136668 — Zack | CodeGov

Vote: Rejected

Reason:
The replacement node is offline from DC im2 that has some serious issues with lots of offline and degraded nodes.

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.