Dear IC Community,
I want to directly address these allegations and reaffirm that we have followed all onboarding processes correctly, transparently, and in full compliance with IC governance requirements in place at the time of our onboarding.
Clarifying Relationships & Compliance Regarding Geeta, Tina, and GeoNodes
Yes, Geeta is my wife, but this was not a required disclosure during onboarding, nor was there any reason to declare it.
She onboarded as an independent node provider, following the same process and meeting the same requirements as any other provider.
Tina and I have known each other for a long time. She runs her nodes independently under her own name and jointly owns GeoNodes with me.
We confirm that we do not control or have any affiliation with any other nodes.
On Business Structuring & Node Distribution
As mentioned in our previous post, structuring node operations through different entities is a legitimate and standard business practice for several reasons, including:
- Data centre requirements (some require contracts with legal entities).
- Operational and tax efficiency, which is standard across industries.
Even if all our nodes were consolidated under Tina and myself, we would still be well below the 42-node threshold (and the 42-node threshold wasn’t even in place yet when we onboarded). The suggestion that we are over represented is factually incorrect.
The IC governance framework does not prohibit spouses, business partners, or colleagues from operating as separate node providers, as long as they meet onboarding requirements.
Addressing Accusations of Network Manipulation
The accusation that this is a Sybil attack or an attempt to manipulate the network is completely false.
- All entities were onboarded transparently and in compliance with IC governance rules.
- There was no attempt to obscure ownership or misrepresent node locations.
- The IC governance framework only requires node providers to comply with onboarding criteria, which we have done fully. The IC governance framework does not specify any “related party” rules or definition thereof, which would be a very extensive topic that would require some lengthy discussion. This was not something we thought about at all in our onboarding process.
If the community believes new rules should be introduced around disclosures, we welcome that discussion.
Community Engagement & Collaboration
Both Tina and I attended the Node Provider Workshop in Zurich, where we had the opportunity to meet other node providers and collaborate on best practices. Engaging with other node providers does not equate to collusion. It is an essential part of strengthening the IC network. The node provider network is filled with dedicated individuals who have been part of this community for a long time and who are committed to the success of the IC ecosystem.
It is concerning to see false narratives and personal accusations being used as a basis for governance discussions.
Transparency is important, but fairness is equally critical. Targeting specific node providers with vague accusations while ignoring the fact that these structures are fully compliant is misleading.
If governance changes are needed, they should be discussed constructively, not through public attacks that undermine trust in the ecosystem.
Governance discussions should not be driven by speculation, suspicion, or selective scrutiny. They should be fact-based and forward-looking.
Finally, we have always complied with IC governance policies and will continue to do so. We remain committed to strengthening the IC ecosystem through fair and transparent governance.