Thanks @louisevelayo!
On further thought, I’m not sure if strictly yes/no questions will always quite cut it. Here are a couple of potential questions:
- Do you own all of your nodes 100% outright? (if the answer is no, there’s a need to dig in to specifics)
- How much did you purchase these nodes for? (if we don’t know this, we don’t know the nodes haven’t been strategically gifted to someone over which the donor may have some form of leverage - formal or informal)
Other things that came up:
-
NNS electing KYC service providers to KYC node providers
- I expressed concerns about this idea
- Who KYCs the KYC service providers?
- It was suggested that this is an easier task because there should be fewer of them, relative to NPs. In my mind that just makes a bad KYC service provider significantly more dangerous than a bad NP
- It was suggested that well-known and trusted firms would be used (who risk reputational damage if they misbehave). In my mind, the insufficiency of this argument is the problem that crypto is supposed to address.
- I think for this idea to be appropriate, there would need to be many KYC service providers rather than few (but this would be costly). They would need to double, triple or quadruple check each others findings (perhaps not all at the same time though, and perhaps not at predictable intervals). Donna raised good points and suggestions that I think relates to this.
- To my understanding, the problem these KYC service providers are supposed to solve is that node providers need to be able to keep their identity documentation out of the public sphere to avoid potential for identity theft. So someone trusted needs to check that documentation. This feels like solving a problem with another problem.
-
Meanwhile there are node providers who have refused to disclose important details about their nodes. They’ll only do that if there’s an NNS motion that mandates that they do so. So should we just go ahead and get that motion out there?
-
In terms of NP links, there’s not currently an idea about how to incentivise the minimisation of links. As long as a cluster collectively have less than 42 nodes then it was mentioned there’s no concern. What happens if they do collectively have more nodes? Which NPs of the cluster should be held accountable? How should this rule apply to recent transfers that were needlessly opaque?