Can you provide the name(s) of who at DFINITY think that this would be compliant with new rules that are being formulated? I’ve been involved with, and following the discussion around this closely, and I don’t believe the proposal is/will be compliant. Or at least not in a way that one couldn’t pick endless holes in.
Compliance rests on an expectation that David would not be considered a UBO due to having less that a 25% share, and simultaneously rests on an assumption that this is sufficient to avoid being ‘clustered’ with the nodes he owns outright. In the same way that a single node provider should not own more than 42 nodes, a single ‘cluster’ should not contain 42 nodes either.
What makes the number 25 magical in this respect? Why would 24.9% make someone no longer a UBO? How many 24.9% non-UBO shares should a node provider be allowed to have in other node providers’ affairs (2, 3, 4 ..)? How many arbitrary numbers and levels of indirection need introducing to shoehorn the reality of interdependence into a token gesture of independence?
So can I ask why you’ve jumped the gun and submitted proposals (136497, 136504) that assumes this will happen, and that also are arguably not aligned with the direction that the Node Provider Independence discussion has taken? There should have been time for discussion after this announcement and before the proposal was submitted.
You guys are talented devs, I love what you’re doing for the IC, I harbour no ill will. But that doesn’t change my thoughts about this (which is a super important topic, and one that the IC needs to get right).