TLDR:
This proposal removes 2 node(s) from Lisbon 2, Jacksonville and adds 2 replacement node(s) in Douglas 1, Antwerp. Nodes are replaced for two reason
NP Rivonia is selling their node as mentioned in the proposal with valid form post.
One dead node 6hqi5… Seems to be offline from ping tool. The node has been active since 2024-12-23 by proposal 134563
No issues found in proposed nodes, I vote to adpot
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.
TLDR: Replaces 1 offline node (out of 34 nodes in total, so no urgency) with an online unassigned node, and also replaces a cordoned node with another unassigned online node.
However the proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the rbn2y+g7dkt+acqus cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
As a side note, both the current and the proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the 6sq7t+eatbv+otzuu+vegae cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0.054 km
8079.455 km
19447.697 km
PROPOSED
42.554 km (+78703.8%)
7863.959 km (-2.7%)
19447.697 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
6
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
25 (+4%)
34
34
34
34
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.) →
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)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
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.
Reason:
The proposal replaces dead Offline status node 6hqi5 from Portugal, and one healthy but cordoned node from NP Rivonia Holdings LLCdwcjo from Florida,US, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status nodes innof from Isle of Man, and noil6 from Belgium with slight improvement to decentralization.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.80
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
6
3
25
City
12
NA
34
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 10.80
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
6
3
24
City
12
NA
34
Data Center
12
1
34
Data Center Owner
12
1
34
Node Provider ID
12
1
34
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.
TLDR: Replaces a cordoned node (referencing clear public declaration from the relevant NP) with an unassigned node. Decentralisation is significantly reduced (increasing max nodes per country from 2 to 3 within this subnet), however this is still within the thresholds imposed by the IC Target Topology. See Decentralisation Stats below for more detail.
As a side note, both the existing and the proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the rbn2y+g7dkt+acqus cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
In addition, both the existing and the proposed subnet topology contains 2 nodes from the 6sq7t+eatbv+otzuu+vegae cluster (more than 1 breaks the ‘independent party’ imperative that each subnet needs to adhere to). The nodes involved are:
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
42.554 km
7863.959 km
19447.697 km
PROPOSED
42.554 km
8027.61 km (+2.1%)
19447.697 km
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
6
25
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
24 (-4.2%)
34
34
34
34
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
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.
The handover document can be found here and follows the requirements stated here
In which Data Center these excess node machines will be operated
Declaration that both NPs do not have any majority control in each other’s operations
A confirmation that you have deployed two nodes with IPv4 and a domain name in each DC(s)
The date when these nodes will start earning the new reward values
Signed by both NPs involved in the transaction
The first step in this process is to offboard the nodes in question from their subnets, so that they can be relocated in this case, and redeployed under their new Node Operator.
Since NP Decentralized Entities Foundation is planning to have all this 8 nodes in Barcelona, we can expect a later proposal for adding a new Node Operator.
The decentralization metrics remain unchanged.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR:
This proposal removes 1 node(s) from Paris 1 and adds 1 replacement node(s) in Chicago 3. NP Carbon12 is offboarding their nodes as posted link. No issues found in proposed new node, Vote to adopt.
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.
Carbon Twelve is transitioning the operation of its eight ICP node machines to DEF—relocating four from Paris to join four in Barcelona and coordinating their removal from subnets, registry updates, and physical migration—to ensure uninterrupted service as C12 temporarily steps back but plans to return. Proposals [137088, 137089, 137090, 137091, 137092] are all related to this transition.
Dear Reviewers,
we’ve submitted proposal 137603 to make sure only one node from the newly formed cluster is remaining in the subnet. We did ask the involved NPs to confirm in this thread.
TLDR: Removes a newly identified cluster (verified here and here), while maintaining decentralisation metrics within the specified IC Target Topology.
Country Discrepancies (3)
The very large discrepancy (Panama and South Africa) has been raised previously, and inspected by DFINITY. The other two appears to be within error tolerances.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
42.554 km
8027.61 km
19447.697 km
PROPOSED
14.242 km (-66.5%)
8483.462 km (+5.7%)
19461.143 km (+0.1%)
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
6
24
34
34
34
34
PROPOSED
6
22 (-9.1%)
34
34
34
34
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
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)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
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.
@Vivienne, is there any chance you’d be able to add the ‘Subnet-management’ tag to this topic? This will make it consistent with the Subnet Management-specific topics and aid searchability. I would ask @dsharifi, but seems he’s no longer active on the forum.
