Recent batch of proposals included a lot from im2 data center. They are on and off. It seems that it is getting better, let’s see once block rewards are finally visible.
1 Like
I have BlueAnt, Zarety, Rivona recorded as warning. Are there other clusters we should be aware of?
1 Like
Nice! Yeah I think there are several. GeoNodes, Tina, Geeta, and George Bassadone should almost certainly be a single cluster. I suspect there should be numerous more, but at the moment there’s a lack of information.
The DRE tooling has started keeping track of clusters, but it’s not very comprehensive yet (it doesn’t include Geeta in the George Bassadone cluster, and doesn’t have any other clusters recorded yet).
2 Likes
I think it would make sense to include BDL in a cluster with 0X52 (given the transfer which is sealed with a non-disclosure agreement)
I also think it would make sense to include Allusion in a cluster with NODAO and DeNoDe (given the transfer which is sealed with an implicit ‘no comment’)
Maybe we should start a post to see if there are any other obvious ones that community members can suggest. Then a motion proposal could be submitted that simply asks the community if they agree that reviewers should treat these nodes as belonging to a single cluster until transparency has been provided to the community.
3 Likes
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
Yeah, the pages of proof linking all of these node operators to the same beneficial owners, let’s just forget that exists.
That is the reality, and we’re not going to drift from it no matter how much you guys poison the ecosystem with your fake narratives.
2 Likes
It’s pretty simple Zack. If you want to keep doing a half-assed job with your reviews, that’s up to you.
If you have something constructive to share then I’m all ears. This network needs people who don’t burry their head in the sand and pretend things are the way they’re supposed to be. That’s a silent killer.
4 Likes
IMHO, it is better to see the results of the UBO pilot audits when they are done. Some of the NPs mentioned have actually volunteered to participate. Having tangible evidence is a solid path forward; operating on the presumption of guilt will set us on the path of conspiracies and mutual accusations, which is counterproductive.
4 Likes
Thanks @Alexu, which ones have volunteered? Regarding the pilot programme, have you read this?
In any case, a confirmed non-disclosure agreement between two node providers about their affairs is insufficient interdependence for you to consider them clustered? You think the IC should consider parties of this sort as meeting the ‘Independent Parties’ imperative?
Why wait an indeterminate amount of time to learn what’s already known (that certain NPs cannot currently be regarded as independent).
1 Like
IMHO NDA doesn’t imply clustering. There is a myriad of different agreements from business and taxation perspectives that could have take place. The intricacies of them could be quite sensitive, depending on the taxation and laws in different jurisdictions, and could depend on the particular tax situations of the entities involved in node transfer. And it is fully understandable why NPs do not want to reveal them in public unless they have to. Thus the audits and auditors that are not going to publish the findings for the general public/community. This way we should be able to confirm/deny clustering and adjust the algorithms accordingly.
1 Like
I’ll let @bjoernek announce it once we finalize the list.
2 Likes
Are you confident in that opinion? How do you think this stance (if it were the agreed status quo) would effect perceptions about the IC and its core value proposition?