3nd Community Diligence Review of ND-CLOUD Allocator

[NDLABS-Leo]

Community Diligence Review of ND-CLOUD Allocator

Allocator Report: https://compliance.allocator.tech/report/f03012741/1730163225/report.md
Allocation Record：https://datacapstats.io/notaries/f03012741

This round of review is the second round of 5PiBs allocations.

DataCap awarded to:

[filecoin-watchdog]

@NDLABS-Leo
Allocator Application
Compliance Report
1st Review
2nd Review
1st Review score: 2.5PiB granted
2nd Review score: 5PiB granted

5 PiB granted to clients:

Client Name	DC	status
FileDriveLabs	1.2 PiB	Existing*
VICTORBTC	2.8 PiB	New
Bond	50 TiB	New
DazhuCounty Wannongda agricultural development limited liability company	550 TiB	New
Commoncrawl	200 TiB	New
AILayer	200 TiB	New

*FileDriveLabs is a new client, yet the first tranche was allocated with the DC from the previous distribution

The Allocator in this round allocated all 5 PiB to new clients.

Bond 50TiB granted

• This client has applied 12 times to different allocators with the same dataset. Sometimes at the same time.
• Distribution looks ok. Retrieval rates high.
• KYB conducted
• More questions on data preparation might have been asked

FileDriveLabs 1.2PiB granted (1.5PiB total)

• This dataset seems to be stored multiple times already on the filecoin and the allocator did point that out to the client asking for explanations. However, the justification doesn't seem very strong, considering that the client didn't specify what the scope of data stored on filecoin would be, but only provided an address to a folder on aws. Below is a link to the search results for this dataset: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Afilecoin-project%2Ffilecoin-plus-large-datasets+smithsonian-open-access&type=issues
• KYB conducted
• Retrieval Rates at mixed level(2 out of 8 SPs has no retrieval, possibly DDO deals, 2 has high, the rest oscilates between 20-50%)
• CID sharing observed

Commoncrawl 200TiB granted

• This specific dataset was stored already on filecoin network many times: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Afilecoin-project%2Ffilecoin-plus-large-datasets+wrfprsf13.grib2&type=issues
  This wasn’t raised by the allocator
• No information on data preparation
• This client seems to apply for DC to many different allocators. It seems they applied before to another allocator with the same dataset ([DataCap Application] Commoncrawl filplus-bookkeeping/DAYOU#3).
• Although this is within the acceptable norm, it is worth noting that for half of the SPs there were several percent data duplications.
• Retrieval rates are tolerable, yet not good enough. All 6 SPs have retrieval of at least 30%, oscillating between 38-82%
• Was the KYC/KYB conducted? I see you asked for it, yet it’s not clear how it went. Could you clarify?

VICTORBTC 2.8PiB granted

• 3 out of 9 SPs has retrieval rate 0%
• Was the KYC/KYB conducted? I see some discussions on KYB but to confirm, please describe what actions were made with this client?
• The issue of review the applicant’s data was raised in the GitHub issue, but the topic was not pursued. How does the allocator plan to handle this?
• Client declared 8 replicas and 9 were already distributed

DazhuCounty 550TiB granted

• This client applied for DC with the same dataset at the same time to two different allocators ([DataCap Application] <Dazhu County Wannongda agricultural development limited liability company> - <agriculture>  nicelove666/Allocator-Pathway-IPFSTT#74), both applications were successful.
• Not enough information on data preparation
• Was the KYC/KYB conducted?

AILayer 200TiB

• This client applied previously to allocator’s other pathway with exact same dataset [DataCap Application] <AINN Layer2> - <on-chain data> NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-Enterprise-data#3
• 1 SP doesn’t match the provided SPs list - f02826588
• Not enough information on data preparation

---

The 2nd review ended with several points stressed:

• continuation of KYC and KYB processes,
• evidence of enterprise and paid-storage deals, such as on-chain deal-pricing,
• reminder not to grant DC to the same client across both pathways,
• reminder not to work with clients who are partnering with other allocators

Taking the above into account, let me make a few comments:

• KYC/KYB processes were conducted, yet for some examples it would be good to hear the allocator’s clarification,
• Has the allocator considered the issue of providing evidence of paid-storage deals? Are there any that can be reviewed?
• Regarding not serving the same clients from two pathways, unfortunately I have to say that this happened with the AILayer client (see above).
• Similarly, the allocator seems to cooperate with clients who are partnering with other allocators (DazhuCounty, Bond).

[NDLABS-Leo]

@filecoin-watchdog
Thank you for your thorough review. From your comments on different allocators, it is clear that you are a diligent and responsible reviewer. I will respond to your comments in two parts: a general summary and specific comments on the review of different clients.

1. Continuation of KYC and KYB Processes
   From our clients, you can see that we require at least an enterprise email or business license as proof for each client. This serves as the basic foundation for our review process.

2. Evidence of Enterprise and Paid-Storage Deals, such as On-Chain Deal Pricing
   Regarding this, we are currently developing automated review tools. The contract functionality has already been developed and is now in the testing phase. We will launch this automated review tool as soon as possible.

3. Reminder Not to Grant DataCap to the Same Client Across Both Pathways
   Yes, during the meeting with Galen, he emphasized that different allocators should have clearly defined client scopes. As you can see this time, we did not allocate DataCap to the same client across different allocators.

4. Reminder Not to Work with Clients Who Are Partnering with Other Allocators
   On this point, we did not receive this information in the last meeting. Additionally, I recall Kevin mentioning on Slack that it is permissible for clients to apply to different allocators as long as they meet the requirements of each allocator. Please let me know if I misunderstood this point.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

[NDLABS-Leo]

Below are the responses to the questions raised regarding applications from different clients:

1、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#32 50TiB granted
This client does not appear to have raised any issues. We will prioritize following up on the data preparation matter.

2、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#27 1.2PiB granted (1.5PiB total)
Regarding this client, we have conducted KYB verification, and as a deep participant in the Filecoin ecosystem, FileDrive holds a certain level of influence within the community. Therefore, we consider them a trustworthy client. Additionally, during the course of the project, their reports have been compliant, and the retrieval rates of their nodes are within acceptable ranges.

3、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#39 200TiB granted
We noticed your concern regarding the KYC/KYB process for this client. For this particular client, we requested KYB verification, and their explanation was: “We are a team of several technicians and do not have a company.” However, they provided us with their application records from other allocators. Upon review, we found their sealing performance to be satisfactory. Therefore, we decided to allow them to start the project with a small allocation of DataCap.

4、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#35 2.8PiB granted
Regarding the KYC/KYB situation, we requested them to submit corporate verification documents. For specific details, please refer to the provided documentation：NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#35 (comment)

Regarding the issue of node retrieval rates, we raised concerns and received a response from the client. Using the ND retrieval tool for verification, we found that node f03228820 indeed has a retrieval rate of 57%. (The ND retrieval tool has already been open-sourced.)

5、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#30 550TiB granted
For the client’s KYB/KYC records, please refer to the following link:NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#30 (comment)

6、NDLABS-Leo/Allocator-Pathway-ND-CLOUD#47 200TiB
Regarding the AINN client, as mentioned above, since the second round of reviews and following Galen’s suggestions, we have implemented clear distinctions among the allocators under our management. As a result, there will no longer be cases where the same client receives quota allocations across different allocators we manage. Therefore, the AINN client has only been allocated quotas under the ND Cloud allocator and has not received any allocations under Cyberport.