wpb
March 16, 2025, 8:48pm
131
LORIMER ā¾ļø š¶:
While thereās still uncertainty about what these non-disclosure (and/or no comment ) cases are about, I would suggest that the donor NPs and recipient NPs should be considered to belong to āclustersā (and should not reside within the same subnet). If I donāt hear objections, Iāll update my tooling to take this into account, which will inform the way that I vote.
Iāve already stated that I believe this is a good idea.
wpb:
Anyway, understanding the reason that each node provider has felt the need to protect their business or investment with an NDA doesnāt seem like something that will result in a productive outcome. I think identifying the rules and work process that can ensure a higher degree of transparency in the future is the place to focus. In the meantime, establishing relationship clusters is the best idea I have heard so far on how to mitigate the risk of assigning too many nodes from node providers with a relationship to the same subnet.
These clusters could be defined by node transfer parties and assumed relationships, but with no remuneration penalty. The DRE tool could take these relationship clusters into account in the topology targets.
It would be nice if a more complete list of relationships were discussed and agreed to in the form of an NNS proposal. @Lerak made the best attempt at creating this list that Iāve seen so far, but itās been largely ignored so far.
Concerns have been raised in various posts by reviewers and other members of the community about links between Node Providers. These concerns center around the theoretical possibility of too many ālinkedā Node Providers ending up on the same subnet and the implications thereof.
Node Providers are not involved in the allocation of specific nodes to subnets. Dfinity makes these changes, and it gets reviewed by the community when āSubnet Managementā proposals are submitted to the NNS. Reviewers ā¦