And that is exactly the key question. So far in the tooling we have been following the Nakamoto Coefficients across multiple dimensions as the driving factor for the topology since it’s the golden standard for measuring network decentralization (e.g. here). For instance, even if we 100% strictly follow the target topology, we still have the NC of 5 for the NNS subnet. We would have the NC of 4 for Country on uzr34 (II subnet). So there is really no need to over-dramatize here or pretend that it’s absolutely critical to be super pedantic here. It’s just different measures of decentralization, and all of them are reasonably good. Which one is better… I guess depends.
And it’s up to us to discuss. In a civilized discussion, of course.
Note that NC is often (on different crypto projects) calculated just in a single dimension – per “node providers”. We calculate it across multiple dimensions, which may or may not be necessary. I personally think it’s reasonable and useful to calculate and compare across multiple dimensions. But I don’t speak in the name of the entire DFINITY, and I’m not against changing the current implementation if there is a good argument for it.
For instance, one could argue that all City & Country & Continent dimensions aren’t as important as the ISP (DC owner) or the DC. And certainly not as important as the NP. One could also argue that they are important. I guess depends on the point of view, and I’d welcome some suggestions on how to do the weighting (importance) of these dimensions on the final NC.