Subnet Management - tdb26 (NNS)

Governance NNS proposal discussions
, ,
110

Proposal 137165 Review | Lorimer :infinity: :dog_face: - CO.DELTA △

VOTE: YES

TLDR: Removes George Bassadone’s node from the subnet, given that George Bassadone is a UBO of GeoNodes LLC, which also controls a node within this subnet.

However, it’s important to note that this proposal exposes the subnet to a similar (but slightly lesser) risk by introducing a new cluster. 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:

DeNoDe was formed by acquiring nodes from Allusion (by an individual closely involved with Allusion), and the two parties have declined to comment on the financial arrangement (and the meaningfulness of the transfer).

I see this as a slightly lesser risk though, given that we know that George Bassadone and GeoNodes LLC are essentially the same entity.

Note that a second node is also swapped out of this subnet by this proposal in order to optimise decentralisation metrics. Decentralisation is reduced in several ways, but the IC Target Topology is still respected (ignoring the cluster issue described above).

Country Discrepancies (2)
Node Data Center Claimed Country According to ipinfo.io
mae7q South Moravian Region 1 Czechia Austria
rg2yy Geneva 2 Switzerland Germany
Decentralisation Stats

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

Smallest Distance Average Distance Largest Distance
EXISTING 0 km 7225.165 km 19461.421 km
PROPOSED 0 km (0%) 7180.791 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). :-1:

Subnet characteristic counts →

Continents Countries Data Centers Owners Node Providers Node Operator
EXISTING 6 26 39 39 38 40
PROPOSED 6 25 (-4%) 39 39 38 40

This proposal slightly reduces 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 17 3 2 2 3 1
PROPOSED 18 (+5.88%) 3 2 2 3 1

See here for acceptable limits → Motion 137147

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.

image
image979×419 58.9 KB

Node Changes
Action Node Status Continent Country Data Center Owner Node Provider Node Operator
Remove txh2c UP :bar_chart: Asia Georgia Tbilisi 1 (tb1) Cloud9 George Bassadone yhfy4
Remove wazkf UP :bar_chart: Africa South Africa Gauteng 2 (jb2) Africa Data Centres Honeycomb Capital (Pty) Ltd 3bohy
Add 4jkq7 UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Europe Belgium Antwerp (an1) Datacenter United DeNoDe z4wll
Add 3zfpk UNASSIGNED :bar_chart: Asia Singapore Singapore 3 (sg3) Racks Central Protocol16 vicvb

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.