Proposal 134042
TDLR: As a matter of principle, I try to maintain a policy of rejecting proposals that objectively misrepresent the technical behaviour of the proposal. If proposal summary accuracy is not a strict requirement, this leaves wiggle room to mislead (now, and in the future). I have therefore rejected this proposal.
… a node operator 7mdax currently does not have nodes in any subnet. To get insights into the stability of the nodes of this node operator, we propose to add one of the operator’s nodes to subnet uzr34
Claims made in the proposal summary 
can be validated via the IC API. Reviewing the returned JSON shows that the node operator 7mdax operates a single node, which is indeed currently unassigned.
An UP node in South Africa is removed and replaced with this new Latvian 7mdax node. As can be seen in the map below, this reduces decentralisation in terms of geographic and continental clustering. However these metrics are not part of the formal IC Target Topology. Country diversity is a metric that is improved by this proposal, and this is indeed a metric that forms part of the IC Target Topology. The general claim made that decentralisation ‘get’s better’ is therefore fair.
However, at least one part of the proposal is inaccurate. →
the number of different NP actors increases from 30 to 31
As displayed in the subnet characteristic counts in the Decentralisation Stats below, the number of node providers and node operators is 31, and remains 31 after this proposal has executed.
I believe proposal summary accuracy is extremely important, along with consistent voting principals that are easy for followers to understand (leaving little room for undefined voting behaviour). I have therefore rejected this proposal. It’s not my intention to block the intentions of this proposal, and I’d be happy to accept a replacement proposal with a summary that is technically accurate. I also apologise if I’ve misunderstood any of these details.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 7898.216 km | 19448.574 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km (NaN%) | 7666.342 km (-2.9%) | 19448.574 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).
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 24 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 25 (+4%) | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
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 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 11 (+10%) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Decentralisation in terms of distribution between continents is reduced (however this is not a formal part of the IC Target Topology).
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 132136
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)
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.
Another good neuron to follow is Synapse (follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)