There’s currently a new open ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposal for this subnet.
Proposal 132142
TLDR: I’ve rejected this proposal as it does not solve the offline node issue, and the payload parameters appear to contains errors.
-
Note that node xetvj is included in both the nodes removed and nodes added parameters of the payload. Swapping nodes is supposed to be a transactional operation (I wouldn’t be surprised if this would fail to execute).
-
The other node swap in this proposal is taking the opportunity to improve subnet decentralisation (given there’s already a need for a proposal). 1 node (the only node in Germany) is proposed to be replaced with one node in Latvia. This brings the owner coefficient into the acceptable range (the subnet was previously violating it), however, this proposal still leaves the subnet in a state that is heavily in violation of the formally voted in IC Target Topology. There is supposed to be no more than 3 nodes in the same country (not 6 nodes in one country).
My suggestion would be to reject this proposal and resubmit one that solves the offline node problem, and gets this critical subnet back into a state that conforms to the IC target topology (else clearly explain in the proposal summary why this latter point is not feasible).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 304.39 km | 8096.623 km | 19442.91 km |
| PROPOSED | 285.152 km (-6.3%) | 8095.772 km | 19442.91 km |
This proposal slightly decreases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical decrease in localised disaster resilience). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 22 | 28 | 27 | 28 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 22 | 28 | 28 (+3.6%) | 28 |
This proposal significantly improves decentralisation in terms of data center ownership diversity. 
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 (-50%) | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 125549 (note that these are due for a slight revision)
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)
Table
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Other good neurons to follow:
- CodeGov (will soon be committed to actively reviewing and voting on Subnet Management proposals based on those reviews)
- WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)