Proposal 136666 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: YES
TLDR: Replaces a node that’s been struggling recently with an unassigned node. The Node Rewards Dashboard shows missed blocks recently for the node being replaced.
The replacement node belongs to a new node provider for which there is a degree of controversy. At the very least, the Zarety LLC node provider should be considered to belong to an NP cluster that includes Rivonia Holdings LLC and Blue Ant LLC. Given that neither of these node providers currently have nodes in this subnet, I consider this proposal adoptable.
There’s not change to formal decentralisation metrics (those prescribed by the IC Target Topology).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 452.505 km | 8850.634 km | 18499.629 km |
| PROPOSED | 452.505 km | 8144.963 km (-8%) | 17077.023 km (-7.7%) |
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 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 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 |  |
||||||||
| Add | xoefx | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Isle of Man | Douglas 2 (im2) | Continent8 | Zarety LLC | ylbc3 |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d6thv | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| yim23 | UP | |
North America | Canada | Quebec l1 (mtl1) | Leaseweb | Rivram Inc | zhlzs |
| udlch | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 6 (zh6) | Green.ch | Sygnum Bank | ciprs |
| tmevu | UP | |
Asia | India | Panvel 2 (pl2) | Yotta | Krishna Enterprises | 7rw6b |
| 7s6kl | UP | |
Asia | Japan | Tokyo (ty1) | Equinix | Starbase | cqjev |
| vivoi | UP | |
Europe | Latvia | Riga 1 (rg1) | DEAC | MB Patrankos šūvis | jptla |
| ihb24 | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| 7pwmx | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
| xu6mr | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore (sg1) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | d4bin |
| lkq7d | UP | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
| fe7vt | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Phoenix (ph1) | CyrusOne | MI Servers | 5bnm2 |
| jk3km | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Cape Town 2 (ct2) | Teraco | Kontrapunt (Pty) Ltd | x7fjr |
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.