Removal of notaries from the Filecoin plus program

[raghavrmadya]

Based on multiple flags from the community in the T&T WG slack, calls as well as open disputes in the tracker, the following notaries are being recommended for removal from the main multisig

DaYouGroup
1ane-1
woshidama323
zcfil
newwebgroup
ipollo00
Normalnoise
Aaron01230
igoovo
Bitrise0111
AthSmith
Casey-PG
destor2023
Bitengine-reeta
UnionLabs2020
MetaWaveInfo
TakiChain
BobbyChoii

[DaYouGroup]

Thank you for raising Issue #934. As part of the Filecoin project, we highly value community feedback.
We have noticed your request to remove us as a notary. This is both regrettable and surprising to us as we strive to provide transparent and fair services, always adhering to the guidelines and regulations of Filecoin.
We take your feedback seriously and would like to understand your concerns. Could you kindly provide more specific details about the areas in which you believe we may have faltered as a notary? This could include rule violations, lack of transparency, or areas of service dissatisfaction. This will help us better understand your concerns and carry out necessary self-auditing and improvement.
We commit that upon receiving your detailed feedback, we will promptly investigate and take appropriate actions. If we find that we indeed have areas to improve, we will correct ourselves proactively and report back to the community.
Thank you for your understanding and patience, and we look forward to your reply.

[Aaron01230]

In #913 we have explained that we are both first-round signers for these two LDN applications, and we do not know whether these SP nodes are the same organization , taking a step back, whether it is the same agency, has not reached an agreement, why remove us?

[igoovo]

I feel sad to see the news.

“Based on multiple flags from the community in the T&T WG slack, calls as well as open disputes in the tracker, the following notaries are being recommended for removal from the main multisig”
Cryptowhizzard has tagged every LDN. Is it impossible to sign every copy?

First of all, when I do due diligence, there will be subjective assessment in addition to objective observation (according to the previous notary's investigation report), so not every signature has a comment.

Secondly, in the process of customer data encapsulation, I will also urge customers to pay attention to unreasonable "warnings" and require them to respect the rules.

[igoovo]

If there is anything unreasonable, please point out the specific deficiencies and let us improve.
Thank you!

[Bitengine-reeta]

Since the implementation of the v4 notary work, I have actively participated in community governance meetings. For LDN signatures, I will investigate data samples in advance, test execution reports, and check data retrieval. Everything is executed in strict accordance with the rules of filplus. I do not belong to the most active group working in the community, but I also belong to the above-average level. I never participate in meaningless quarrels in the community, and I treat clients in all regions equally.
So I'm wondering why I'm on the list of being removed.

[newwebgroup]

Dear Filecoin Community Members & RG,
First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude for everyone's participation and effort. The building and development of this community wouldn't be possible without the contribution of each individual. However, we've noticed the proposal concerning our potential removal as a notary, which has genuinely taken us aback.

We are passionate about our work and have always strived to execute our duties in a fair and impartial manner. Hence, the news that we are being recommended for removal from the main multisig "based on multiple community flags and open disputes" has left us troubled and perplexed.

We would like to seize this opportunity to clarify our stance. For any possible misunderstandings or false reports, we are completely open to investigation and explanation. We fully respect the decision-making process of our community and the feedback of its members, but we'd like to underline that in order to respond and improve upon specific issues, it's essential for us to understand the allegations in detail. If possible, we request comprehensive information about the charges leveled against us. This will help us identify where the problem lies, how to resolve it, and how to continue serving our community in a better manner.

We respect the viewpoints of every community member, and we believe that we all share a common goal - we all aspire for the Filecoin community to continue developing and achieve greater success.

We regret any potential misunderstandings, but we also have faith that our community can overcome this issue through dialogue and understanding. We sincerely look forward to responses and guidance so that we can collectively work towards the progress of the Filecoin community.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

Sincerely,
Newwebgroup

[1ane-1]

Dear Community Member:
As a V3 and V4 active notary, we actively perform our duties as a notary and conduct due diligence before signing. We always abide by the duties of a notary, check the application subject, node allocation information, retrieval status, data size, data owner information, and whether Eligible for signature. Therefore I don't understand why I was deleted? So please tell us the specific reasons and specific disputes for correction. This will help us identify what the problem is, how to fix it, and how we can continue to serve our community in a better way.
I believe that we can resolve conflicts, contribute to the filecoin community together, and dedicate our meager efforts with due diligence.
Thanks

[NDLABS-Leo]

Hello @raghavrmadya , as a member of the community, I would like to share some personal thoughts with you. I will try my best to express them in a neutral language, and I apologize if any discomfort arises. My intention is to foster a positive community environment to support the development of fil+:

Firstly, regarding the Notary Nodes (NNs) mentioned in the proposal, what is their current status? Are they allowed to sign as usual, or are they under investigation, which prohibits them from signing?

Secondly, concerning the NNs mentioned in the proposal, what are the reasons for their removal? The accusations lack evidence and are generalized without specific details. This not only makes it difficult for other community members to judge but also makes it challenging for the nominated NNs to respond to the accusations.

Thirdly, regarding the proposal's origin, as you, the leader of fil+, initiated this proposal, we all respect you. However, this kind of proposal can cause panic among the Notary Nodes in the community. If a proposal originates from accusations made by community members, it is advisable for them to submit proposals themselves in such situations.

Fourthly, I suggest optimizing the proposal process and criteria. Lately, there have been many proposals in the community, some of which lack clear reasons and have resulted in a lot of negative feedback. This has also caused a significant waste of community members' energy as they have to constantly pay attention to proposal contents, even if they follow the rules, as they may face baseless accusations.

Finally, I would like to add a few more suggestions regarding proposals:

1. It is recommended to narrow down the scope when making proposals to avoid overly broad proposals that are hard to track.

2. Clear evidence and specific details should be provided for accusations made in proposals.

3. Baseless accusations should be avoided, and if such behavior is prevalent, appropriate restrictions should be implemented.

4. Clear guidelines should be established for proposal types and timelines, distinguishing between suggestions, accusations, and removals. The discussion period and deadline for proposals should be specified.

5. Clear behavior guidelines should be provided for the accused individuals mentioned in proposals. For serious accusations, it is advisable to suspend their roles until a resolution is reached, and vice versa.

I hope to receive feedback from other community members as well. Thank you.

[raghavrmadya]

While going through ND Labs’ application, I have a high level of suspicion that ND Labs is colluding with sxx-future and 1ane-1 to abuse DC. Some applications are here -

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1720

DaYouGroup, Aaron01230, ipollo00 are colluding and are actively abusing DC

Example application-

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1989

I have little to no confidence that the business listed in the above application is a real business about agriculture and fisheries

[raghavrmadya]

More to come

[raghavrmadya]

@Bitengine-reeta This is why your name is here - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1466

Additionally, can you explain such selective engagement as a notary with certain clients?

[raghavrmadya]

MetaWave info continues to ignore due diligence by other notaries and has a pattern of singing. I do not think such behavior is conducive to the program and should stop, immediately. Example - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1558

[raghavrmadya]

Woshidama323, of these applications, why is it the case that the signing is in pairs, including 1ane-1, ND Labs and ZC Fil?

Signing in pairs is not wrong or abuse but when you are rarely active as a notary and it is obvious to the naked eye that you are being selective in supporting specific clients, this raises many questions

[raghavrmadya]

additionally, you cannot just ignore active due diligence by a notary and just sign. That's just sub optimal due diligence, as seen here - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1918

[raghavrmadya]

I used to have a high level of trust in newwebgroup but seeing some of their recent signatures has made me question my trust. To abide by "verufy, not trust", I listed their name here based on the signing behavior in the following applications where we see some examples of potential collusion with 1ane-1 who I have little confidence in. Happy to be proven wrong here

[raghavrmadya]

For everyone's knowledge, BobbyChoii and Takichain have been added to the above list

[raghavrmadya]

Zc fil, BobbyChoii, Casey-PG, and Takichain's due diligence approach of signing here is highly questionable - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1938

I have a high degree of suspicion that the aforementioned notaries are colluding to abuse DC

[raghavrmadya]

I will continue to post more examples from my manual review of LDNs for the past three months that have led me to this stage.

I'm also open to community feedback and it is my job to find patterns of potential abuse and make the community aware. If you disagree, please show evidence of DMs with the client or others forms of evidence of DD for applications that you have signed.

In many applications, I found the aforementioned notaries blindly trusting some other notaries listed above. This, in my opinion, not encouraging quality usage of DC.

Lastly, @NDLABS-Leo , I'm not the leader of fil+, I'm here just to ensure quality usage of DC, and that sometimes requires what we are doing now.

[Bitengine-reeta]

@Bitengine-reeta This is why your name is here - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1466

Additionally, can you explain such selective engagement as a notary with certain clients?

@raghavrmadya
Before signing this LDN, I checked two reports, and the results of the two reports were very reasonable, so I gave my support.
After that, it discovered client storing wrong data, which happened last week. During this period, I had the problem of not checking the email feedback in time. If I check the follow-up information in time, I will revoke my signature.
But :

1. The problem was discovered after I signed it, why should the notary who signed before that be held accountable?
2. The LDN is already in the 7th round of signatures. If his data is wrong, then there are problems with the signatures of the notary public in the first seven rounds?(dealid 33184475)
3. I sign according to a good test report, if I have to be removed from notary just because I did not revoke the proposal in time?
4. I will actively respond to client requests on slack. Generally, I will support their work if I check correctly. This is my client selectivity.
   

[NDLABS-Leo]

@raghavrmadya

Thank you for your response.
(I replied in that way because during the meeting in Paris, your tag was "fil+ leader.")

In addition, regarding your response, I would like to provide the following explanations:

1. Both ND and NWG are Orbit's China region coordinators. When we lead offline meetings, we inevitably come into contact with many members of the Filecoin ecosystem, including notaries. We also communicate with notaries from North America, South Korea, and others on Slack, but it is limited to regular work, and there is no collusion.
2. Since proposal Modification: Recommendation for removal of notaries for abusing Filecoin Plus #811, I have consistently followed high standards for notary signing. I have not paired with any notary for signing, and before signing, I conduct reviews and leave comments stating the reasons for signing to provide traceable evidence.
3. Regarding ND's application, I made advance disclosures in the application form, which is what Kevin - FF and others in the community have requested members to do. To avoid misunderstandings, we always make advance disclosures, including disclosing CIDs and the current progress of project iterations.
4. We have been actively participating in the community and following the latest rules, such as HTTP retrieval. The technical adjustments have been completed, and you can find them in LDN #2055.
5. Whether it was my previous efforts to promote notary signing rules or the current proposal, it is all sincerely aimed at making fil+ better. I also appreciate the work you have done on notary signing rules.
6. I have seen your additions to the evidence, which is a good start, and we will fully cooperate with your work.

Once again, I express my respect to you.

[newwebgroup]

I used to have a high level of trust in newwebgroup but seeing some of their recent signatures has made me question my trust. To abide by "verufy, not trust", I listed their name here based on the signing behavior in the following applications where we see some examples of potential collusion with 1ane-1 who I have little confidence in. Happy to be proven wrong here

We are profoundly thankful to RG for providing a comprehensive explanation on this matter. We have responded in detail to each point of concern you've raised in a specific document. Furthermore, following our thorough examination, we can affirm that there is no collusion in any form with 1ane-1.
@raghavrmadya

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1My_QbNyGKIUfHO0sSqxBLKTpDqD1K5m5bBqymOVL-_E/edit?usp=sharing

[herrehesse]

@newwebgroup Are you asserting the validity of your own examination and determining its accuracy? Shouldn't that be decided by the community?

[ipollo00]

For #1989, this was the first round of signatures when i was review. In the absence of past records, I verified that there was no problem with the client’s company background, and then I asked questions about the data content. If the client did not explain clearly, I gave the opportunity to continue asking. The description and content given by the client were allowed and accepted. So, I signed the client.
In addition, due to bug issues, this signing was not successful. I remember that I was on a break at the time and didn't see the client's response asking for another signature so they found someone else. However, even if I do it again, the same operation will be performed. This is my logic and review method. I don't think there is a problem with my signature. Please check it carefully, thank you.
@raghavrmadya

DaYouGroup, Aaron01230, ipollo00 are colluding and are actively abusing DC

Example application-

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1989

I have little to no confidence that the business listed in the above application is a real business about agriculture and fisheries

[zcfil]

I was shocked to see this proposal again. In the past, there was no very clear regulation for notarial review, so most notaries relied on the content in this link and their own review mechanism to review an LDN. The same goes for us. Since I served as a notary, we have been continuously learning and actively participating in notarial governance meetings. Although our team's English is not very good, But we purchased a real-time translation hardware device worth $800 to support us in understanding every notary governance meeting and keeping up with Filecoin. We have dedicated personnel who spend a few hours every day reviewing and reviewing LDNs. On #898 , we have also announced our team's review mechanism. We are not sure if community members and RG have carefully reviewed it, or if we have any mistakes, you can remind us in a timely manner. Our team is very eager to help Filecoin further succeed.

[ars-bubu]

Dear Mr. RG, why do you always like to handle problems through a guilty verdict? Every industry has a process of making judgments, so can you immediately convict and sentence them?
The normal process is to quote @claydrone from the #898 proposal, which is very correct. There should be a normal process, rather than dictatorship.

Example:

1. Investigation: Law enforcement agencies conduct investigations to collect evidence to determine whether someone has committed a crime, as well as the nature and scope of the criminal act.
2. Prosecution: Prosecutors decide whether to prosecute individuals suspected of committing crimes based on the investigation results and collected evidence. The prosecutor submits an indictment to the court, listing the defendant's charges and charges.
3. Judgment: The judge or jury evaluates evidence and testimony, and then makes a judgment. If the defendant is found guilty, the corresponding punishment will be pronounced and convicted.
   RG, have you omitted steps 1-2?

[DaYouGroup]

While going through ND Labs’ application, I have a high level of suspicion that ND Labs is colluding with sxx-future and 1ane-1 to abuse DC. Some applications are here -

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1720

DaYouGroup, Aaron01230, ipollo00 are colluding and are actively abusing DC

Example application-

filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1989

I have little to no confidence that the business listed in the above application is a real business about agriculture and fisheries

#1989 We signed in the third round, and thus we referred to the early comments for auditing the situation of the LDN.

You can view through the link provided by c12xf (filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1989 (comment)), their data samples are in line with the description of the LDN, indeed content in the agriculture sector. Here you can view the screenshot or link (https://pan.baidu.com/s/1tPGfZSxZ6V2yg39UEJGxqg?pwd=dfxk).

After confirmation, we used the CID checker for a detailed review of CID sharing, data distribution, and retrieval rate.

Upon discovering the existence of CID duplication, we have inquired with the customer. According to the customer's feedback, we understand that the 12.5 TiB of duplicate data was not produced intentionally. The customer has explicitly stated that Dahua has given up this portion of data, and there will no longer be the situation of CID sharing.

Moreover, this LDN's storage is distributed across more than 5 different regions with 16 nodes, fully demonstrating the customer's respect for the FIL+ specification. We believe that this presence is of great value to the Filecoin network, which is also the reason we chose to sign.

If there is any issue that we might have overlooked during the signing process, please inform us. We will provide an explanation for related issues, and appropriately optimize our workflow in future notary work.

[ars-bubu]

Don't explain too much, you have already been convicted. Removable Removable!!!^^ ^^
@DaYouGroup
@1ane-1
@woshidama323
@zcfil
@newwebgroup
@ipollo00
@Normalnoise
@Aaron01230
@igoovo
@Bitrise0111
@AthSmith
@Casey-PG
@destor2023
@Bitengine-reeta
@UnionLabs2020
@MetaWaveInfo
@TakiChain
@BobbyChoii

[woshidama323]

@raghavrmadya

Thank you for your response and for outlining the reasons for the proposed removal, letting us understand the grounds for our inclusion in the removal list. We have already addressed issue #1918, and I would like to reiterate our response here

In relation to our offline discussions with the client that wasn't disclosed on Github, we commit to enhancing transparency in such matters moving forward.

Why is it the case that the signing is in pairs, including 1ane-1, ND Labs, and ZC Fil?

It's infuriating that with the limited number of active clients and active notaries, the probability of 'in pair' occurrences is extremely high after multiple rounds of signings. This should not be a legitimate reason to justify our removal.

rarely active as a notary

1. We participated in the FIP725 discussion and shared our perspectives.”
2. We initiated discussion Regulate community claims to make them more reasonable and fair. #933.
3. We have put our signatures on 33 LDNs, which are spread across 25 clients. Additionally, we have audited more than 40 LDNs (without signing them due to various reasons).
4. 2 meetings per month, etc

I think our level of activity is quite satisfactory.

Once more, we direct your attention to our discussion in #933. We have an earnest desire for the FILPlus project to continue advancing and flourishing. Our suggestions are intended to reduce community friction and promote greater fairness within FILPlus. We respectfully express that Topblocks should not be considered for removal from Notaries Pool.

[igoovo]

additionally, you cannot just ignore active due diligence by a notary and just sign. That's just sub optimal due diligence, as seen here - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1918

It is true that the first round of inspection was a little looser.
Verification will be strengthened in the follow-up.
Thank you for your correction.

[nothingjustaminer]

At least start a vote with all notaries please.

[fsector-1]

@marksunyaoyao It has been evident for quite some time that an initiative to restore quality within the Filecoin+ ecosystem was urgently required. We are now delighted to see that this initiative is finally taking place. The lack of control over datacap outflow, the absence of clear visibility regarding the actual stored data, and the disappointing outcome of only a few genuine new clients emerging after more than two thousand applications in six months, have all been major concerns that need to be addressed.

Putting an end to these issues is of utmost importance. It is crucial that notaries who are misusing their powers within the program are swiftly removed to ensure the program's integrity and success moving forward.

@herrehesse I don't know what I have to explain to you. Is this another round of convictions? It's just so funny, you're giving me evidence that doesn't make sense, that you're messing with 666

[herrehesse]

I am messing with the devil @fsector-1 ?

[fsector-1]

I am messing with the devil @fsector-1 ?

@herrehesse Mr
Communicate the problem head-on, please. No personal attacks

[herrehesse]

Your words here, not mine mr.

@herrehesse I don't know what I have to explain to you. Is this another round of convictions? It's just so funny, you're giving me evidence that doesn't make sense, that you're messing with 666

[The-Wayvy]

We need to end FIL+.
Blockchains are meant to be permissionless.

@DaYouGroup
@1ane-1
@woshidama323
@zcfil
@newwebgroup
@ipollo00
@Normalnoise
@Aaron01230
@igoovo
@Bitrise0111
@AthSmith
@Casey-PG
@destor2023
@Bitengine-reeta
@UnionLabs2020
@MetaWaveInfo
@TakiChain
@BobbyChoii

[SwitfSystem]

Some notaries are applying for LDN Big Data quotas for their own SPs The Filecoin community should update its review criteria for notaries issuing LDN Big Data quotas to prevent some notaries from abusing their rights as notaries.

[MetaWaveInfo]

Thank you RG for expressing his opinion truthfully. The community has generated a lot of controversy lately none of which we want to see.

Trust itself is full of controversies, what you trust may not be what I trust. trust in the web3 world is built on mechanisms, not KYC/KYB.

If there is a need to vote to resolve disputes, we want everyone to have an equal opportunity to participate.

[SwitfSystem]

The research found that some notaries and data holders have been trading offline for profit and selling LDN quotas, which is a serious violation of the filecoin project's development obstacles

[herrehesse]

You mean selling datacap like Bitmain is currently doing? @SwitfSystem

[kernelogic]

I was on the call "T&T dispute resolution call", and during the discussion of this issue, only 2 notaries were given chance to speak for like 1 min each, and this issue was decided a go ahead?

There are 18 people on the removal list and it seems 2 mins are too short to decide their fate. I am wonder if all of them got the notification of this meeting taking place at all given the short notice.

[herrehesse]

@kernelogic everyone got a chance, no one responded simply. Secondly it’s their job to be active & responsive, most of them are privately contacted by governance without any response.

They get another chance in V5 soon.

[raghavrmadya]

@kernelogic, please refer to the recording here - https://protocol.zoom.us/rec/share/b3E1tci4dcuprXXT2QnEXbwNychvObfYs43hKDeWkUNpim08BqMJUqRMUgVE7AY.1nZV-WJ6BECtul8E
Passcode: hay=zJ2u

[raghavrmadya]

everyone was given a chance to speak. I did not limit anyone but no one spoke up. If the issue is language, they are welcome to post comments in their preferred language but simple silence does not help anyone get to facts

[raghavrmadya]

Given that there were 90+ people on the call today, I would find it hard to believe they were not on the call, especially given that #934 was explicitly listed and updates were sent in the fil-plus and t&t wg channels. Still, I haven't closed this issue but apart from destor2023 and Aaron01230 (geoffrey), no one contirbuted

[raghavrmadya]

I fiind it most reasonable that notaries that have provided reasonable counter facts, not just words, such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 and @ipollo00 engage. Additionally, @igoovo displayed honestly that they did let things loose.

As the person who opened the issue, I would like to propose that we keep this issue open for another week, and if we don't get concrete evidence of conducting robust due diligence, they must be removed

[kernelogic]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, it sounded like from the meeting, the decision was to only allow the two who spoke up, destor2023 and Aaron01230 to keep the status, for others, such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 @ipollo00 @igoovo @newwebgroup who provided counter facts, but didn't get a chance to speak up during meeting, still on track to be removed.

Anyways, since this issue is still open for another week, let's see what else can be done in the mean time. If zoom presentation is required to be considered eligible, more time should be allocated to adequately allow 18 people to present.

That's all what I am trying to say. Thanks.

[1ane-1]

I fiind it most reasonable that notaries that have provided reasonable counter facts, not just words, such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 and @ipollo00 engage. Additionally, @igoovo displayed honestly that they did let things loose.

As the person who opened the issue, I would like to propose that we keep this issue open for another week, and if we don't get concrete evidence of conducting robust due diligence, they must be removed

@raghavrmadya I sent the Evidence to the T&T Call chating room on Friday.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC3CQLjJNrmst2zodMYyc0fYsni2gRuyxaNC2kpB678/edit
For keeping as a notary, we checked the picture you posted (havecollusion with others), but we found that my sign was not present at all. You can check it out. We did not collude with NWG and others at all. For the #1720 we signed you mentioned, we just signed before checking their pecie cid and retrieval etc. It meets our sign requirements. And #2050, we check their information and support their first round. It is no problem.We are not in collusion with anyone, that is a misunderstanding. Hope you can check it out.

[NDLABS-Leo]

@raghavrmadya

Thank you for your response. (I replied in that way because during the meeting in Paris, your tag was "fil+ leader.")

In addition, regarding your response, I would like to provide the following explanations:

1. Both ND and NWG are Orbit's China region coordinators. When we lead offline meetings, we inevitably come into contact with many members of the Filecoin ecosystem, including notaries. We also communicate with notaries from North America, South Korea, and others on Slack, but it is limited to regular work, and there is no collusion.
2. Since proposal Modification: Recommendation for removal of notaries for abusing Filecoin Plus #811, I have consistently followed high standards for notary signing. I have not paired with any notary for signing, and before signing, I conduct reviews and leave comments stating the reasons for signing to provide traceable evidence.
3. Regarding ND's application, I made advance disclosures in the application form, which is what Kevin - FF and others in the community have requested members to do. To avoid misunderstandings, we always make advance disclosures, including disclosing CIDs and the current progress of project iterations.
4. We have been actively participating in the community and following the latest rules, such as HTTP retrieval. The technical adjustments have been completed, and you can find them in LDN #2055.
5. Whether it was my previous efforts to promote notary signing rules or the current proposal, it is all sincerely aimed at making fil+ better. I also appreciate the work you have done on notary signing rules.
6. I have seen your additions to the evidence, which is a good start, and we will fully cooperate with your work.

Once again, I express my respect to you.

Hi, @raghavrmadya
Firstly, ND's name is not listed in the proposal. As a community member, I shared my thoughts on this proposal, and subsequently, you mentioned an accusation against ND in the proposal that we colluded with other notary nodes. In response, I provided timely feedback on GitHub, but I didn't receive any reply. Therefore, I'm unsure if ND is involved in this proposal.

Secondly, during the last TT meeting, ND was also present, but due to the large number of attendees and limited speaking time, not all accused individuals had the opportunity to speak. Additionally, ND was unsure if we needed to unmute ourselves to provide an explanation, so we did not speak.

Thirdly, since the content of this proposal is about removing notary. so, do we only have to provide the proof of the related LDN's signature by ND?

Lastly, what should be our next steps? Will there be a separate meeting for explanations, or should we continue to submit evidence on GitHub?

Once again, I express my respect to you.

[DaYouGroup]

I fiind it most reasonable that notaries that have provided reasonable counter facts, not just words, such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 and @ipollo00 engage. Additionally, @igoovo displayed honestly that they did let things loose.

As the person who opened the issue, I would like to propose that we keep this issue open for another week, and if we don't get concrete evidence of conducting robust due diligence, they must be removed

Let me reiterate the due diligence we conducted during the LDN 1989 review, as this was the third round, So, we conducted the following due diligence work:

1.Data verification: We carefully examined the application information, referred to the early comments and cross-referenced it with the relevant data. No inconsistencies were found with the application information. Regarding the accusation of non-agricultural data in the LDN, the provided link led to a video of a dairy farm, which, in our view, qualifies as agricultural data. If this does not meet the requirements for agricultural data, we are unsure of what would.

2.CID robot inspection: We used a CID robot to check if the packaging process adhered to Fil+'s specifications. During the inspection, we discovered instances of CID sharing. However, upon communicating with the client, we learned that it was an inadvertent error, and the client pledged it would not happen again. Furthermore, we can confirm the client has fulfilled their commitment through the latest CID report.

3.Node distribution check: We verified if the node distribution complied with Fil+'s specifications. Although the specifications are advisory rather than strict requirements, we consistently encourage clients to adhere to them as closely as possible. In this audit, LDN is distributed across five different regions, including Singapore, Shenzhen, Los Angeles, Clifton, England, and Hong Kong, totaling 16 nodes. Each storage allocation is below 20%, fully aligning with Fil+'s guidelines.

Based on the results of these investigations, we concluded that the LDN complies with Fil+'s specifications and proceeded with the signing. As for the situations of other notaries, we are not aware of them and are not familiar with their circumstances. Thus, there is no evidence of collusion or abuse.

We had already explained the above details in Github comments two weeks ago but received no response. We would appreciate your confirmation on whether Github comments are effective or if you prefer opening a separate ISSUE for further clarification or conducting a voice meeting. Please inform us through Github.

[zcfil]

Zc fil, BobbyChoii, Casey-PG, and Takichain's due diligence approach of signing here is highly questionable - filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#1938

I have a high degree of suspicion that the aforementioned notaries are colluding to abuse DC

In this LDN, we just asked a few simple questions and checked some relevant data. However, due to various reasons, we did not sign at that time. We hope you can carefully check it.

When we mentioned this issue in the last meeting, we were unable to speak in a timely manner due to language issues, but Our review mechanism has been announced on #898, and it can be seen that #898 has been closed. If there are any further questions, we hope you can point them.Thks！

[newwebgroup]

I used to have a high level of trust in newwebgroup but seeing some of their recent signatures has made me question my trust. To abide by "verufy, not trust", I listed their name here based on the signing behavior in the following applications where we see some examples of potential collusion with 1ane-1 who I have little confidence in. Happy to be proven wrong here

We are profoundly thankful to RG for providing a comprehensive explanation on this matter. We have responded in detail to each point of concern you've raised in a specific document. Furthermore, following our thorough examination, we can affirm that there is no collusion in any form with 1ane-1. @raghavrmadya

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1My_QbNyGKIUfHO0sSqxBLKTpDqD1K5m5bBqymOVL-_E/edit?usp=sharing

Prior to this, NWG has submitted an explanation document on Github.And also participated in the last T&T meeting.
But judging from the records of Github,
Text form of reply is not accepted or recognized.

So what should we do next?
Can someone point out exactly what is considered evidence of reasonable compliance?
By going to the T&T group meeting again and explaining?
Or book a Zoom meeting with the T&T group leader?
Or some other form?

[ipollo00]

Hi @raghavrmadya
Do you mean the notaries you listed ruled out the suspicion? Because we have provided reasonable counter-facts?

such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 and @ipollo00 engage. Additionally, @igoovo displayed honestly that they did let things loose.

For those other notaries who do not provide evidence going to be removed next week?

and if we don't get concrete evidence of conducting robust due diligence, they must be removed

Please give feedback on whether you agree or not under everyone's evidence. Everyone seems to be very confused now.

[1ane-1]

I fiind it most reasonable that notaries that have provided reasonable counter facts, not just words, such as @Bitengine-reeta @DaYouGroup @NDLABS-Leo @1ane-1 and @ipollo00 engage. Additionally, @igoovo displayed honestly that they did let things loose.
As the person who opened the issue, I would like to propose that we keep this issue open for another week, and if we don't get concrete evidence of conducting robust due diligence, they must be removed

@raghavrmadya I sent the Evidence to the T&T Call chating room on Friday.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC3CQLjJNrmst2zodMYyc0fYsni2gRuyxaNC2kpB678/edit For keeping as a notary, we checked the picture you posted (havecollusion with others), but we found that my sign was not present at all. You can check it out. We did not collude with NWG and others at all. For the #1720 we signed you mentioned, we just signed before checking their pecie cid and retrieval etc. It meets our sign requirements. And #2050, we check their information and support their first round. It is no problem.We are not in collusion with anyone, that is a misunderstanding. Hope you can check it out.

Dear RG，As a V3 and V4 notary,contirbutor to filecoin,we strictly abide by the fil+ guidelines, perform corresponding due diligence, and actively participate in filecoin activities as members of the Oribit community. We have not colluded with anyone in this. It seems to me shameful to do so. Given the last time you showed the picture of our collusion with NDlabs and NWG we put together the documentation to clarify. We also participated in the conference call last Friday, and we were ready to speak. We thought we needed to be called to speak, so we waited, but we missed the opportunity to speak. Therefore, I wanted to post the content of the explanation and the link to the Google document on zoom before the end of the meeting. I wonder if you have seen it here? If you feel that we still need more evidence to clarify, I sincerely want to arrange a zoom meeting with you to resolve this matter. Thank you so much.

[raghavrmadya]

This discussion has made it clear that an evidence-based approach is NOT helpful in keeping notaries in check. IMO, the room for interpretation given to notaries is being heavily abused and we need strict guidelines by the community on due diligence and what a notary must do before signing.

As such, this specific discussion has reached a dead end. In the coming days, I will open separate issues outlining the instances of abuse against specific notaries listed in this thread