Transparent Node Providers

General DFINITY
20

:police_car_light: Why This is a Serious Problem

  1. Vested Interest in Disguise:

    • Loans from Fisher, a powerful and established node provider, create financial leverage, even if legal ownership is retained by LĂ©o or Enzo.
    • This could be used to coordinate governance votes, technical influence, or economic capture.

  2. False Impression of Independence:

    • Claiming 100% beneficial ownership while being funded by the same source as other entities masks underlying centralization.
    • Community relies on financial and operational independence to preserve decentralization and Sybil resistance.

  3. Lack of Full Disclosure:

    • If Fisher’s role was not clearly disclosed in WaterNeuron-related node bids or SNS filings, that’s a transparency violation.
    • In DeFi and governance systems, lack of full economic disclosure is as dangerous as fake identities.

  4. Potential Governance Capture:

    • Fisher now has influence—direct or indirect—across multiple entities that control node infrastructure, and possibly SNS governance proposals.
    • WaterNeuron already had controversy for replicating NNS votes—this adds more reason to be wary.

Summary (for community reference):

WaterNeuron’s node operators, Enzo and Léo, received financing from David Fisher—an active and influential node provider, a venture capitalist

While they each claim to be 100% UBO of their respective entities (BlueAnt LLC and others), the financial link presents a covert consolidation of power. With nodes and network security at stake, and history of controversial SNS governance behavior, this connection must be viewed as a risk to decentralization and clear conflict of interest

2 Likes