The following P-Reps will be disqualified if no action is taken


Result: Approved.
Reason: Duplication. Lost Private Key.

  • Noris
  • Gilga Capital

When: Tentative
Reason: Inactive. Not Running Node. Not Response to ICON Team.

  • Nel node
  • ICX Freezer
  • Cobo ICON
  • Hashrate Plus
  • ICCC Node
  • MW Node
  • Xangle

A P-Rep disqualification proposal has to be agreed and voted on during 1 term only. Otherwise it will be automatically disapproved after 24 hours or 1 term (assuming that we submit the proposal right at beginning of a term).

Sub P-Reps not running a node vs. ICONstitution

I can only say good luck with coordinating 22 main prep.


I’ll focus on first two categories for now.

First one is clear, there is nothing they can do about it since they lost private keys. However, we need to inform the community about this issue and give people time to unvote. Except traditional channels like Telegram, Reddit, Twitter we could also try sending them a tx containing message in data field.

In second category I’d wait until the new docker image with p-rep node is released and then get in touch with p-reps to fix their nodes.


This is a problem. We can’t expect voters to be actively participating when plenty of P-Reps don’t do that themselves.


You can remember us for removal of zombie nodes. Whichever term you submit the proposal, do notify if we are also main prep in that term. :smiley:


Duplication & Lost Private Keys
I agree that these should be disqualified ASAP. There’s no reason to have duplicate teams on the governance page and it can potentially confuse ICONists who wish to vote for these teams. This would make for a good test run for P-Reps to organize and vote on disqualification.

Inactive Nodes
Depending on the rank of these teams, I can see why some of them may not choose to run a node if it’s not possible to break even. I think a disqualification should only apply to these teams if they are not engaging with the community, ignoring ICON team, and not running a node. If they are making some attempt to engage with the community and discussing why they do not have their node up, I don’t think they should be disqualified. P-Reps come from all over the world, and in some countries, it’s realistic for P-Reps to not be able to afford to run a node if they do not receive enough rewards to cover it. With that said, I don’t know much about any of these teams. Need to look into them more…

The last two categories I’m a little mixed on. It does bother me that ICXUltra and Symmetry SLC have put forth no effort in terms of sharing their proposal/plans. However, a proposal is not an on-chain requirement for P-Rep registration. I think no proposal is okay ONLY if the team is actively engaging with the community to share their plans. Again we’re coming back to the question about how to quantify “contribution”. I can see the argument that maintaining a node as a Top 22 P-Rep is “contributing”. I personally disagree with that, and see that as more of a baseline that shouldn’t be factored into what “contribution” is - at least for main P-Reps. Thoughts?


Let’s clear up the duplicate nodes ASAP. This is a simple duty to keep dead nodes out of the P-Rep ranks and clear up any confusion when new ICONists look on the voting page and see multiple of the same name. These teams have let the community know they’ve changed nodes and given ample time to do so.

For those inactive nodes, I believe every P-Rep should be required to run a node. However, I do not think that not running a node in and of itself should not warrant immediate removal. We should give a grace period to get a node up and running. Nodes can be run for $50-$100 a month. If teams are engaging and responsive and maybe just don’t realize they can run a node at this cost and not be losing money, then perhaps we can educate them and help them run nodes rather than disqualifying. If those teams are not responsive and show no desire to participate in node operations, then let’s vote to remove.

I suggest we focus on just these two categories for now. This is a new process and even coordinating with the 22 P-Reps to just get one dead node removed would be a win. We can grow from there to more complex situations.


We have to remain EXTREMELY vigilant about the no proposal P-Reps. Our network is still fragile,as per today, it would cost 364640$ to “buy its way” into Main-PReps. We’re sure that we will see a lot of greedy actors come up with very superficial/inexistant proposition.

We’re in a DPoC, we have to be extremely critical towards PReps who appears out of nowhere, with most of their delegations coming from a single address.

Symettry announced that they will publish their proposition soon. Let’s wait what they have to offer. But guys, we have to keep in mind that a LOT of sub PReps have very ambitious plans for ICON. And the current ecosystem is not designed to “get rich by validating”.

Our opinion is that disqualifying a PRep for not contributing enough is not exagerated. It’s our duty as PRep to make sure that PReps rewards are flowing back into the ecosystem.


I think it’s important to create certain guidelines before we take action against P-reps such as Symmetry, as much as I am for disqualifying P-reps that don’t seem to have the ICONist’s interest as a priority - it’s also unfair to disqualify P-reps for breaking an unfounded rule.


Official Announcement from ICON Team

The ICON Foundation has decided to vote on the disqualification proposal for duplicate nodes. As a Public Representative, the ICON Foundation also has a responsibility to participate in governance and protect the ICON Network. We will vote to agree with disqualifying these nodes.

The main reason for this decision is that inactive nodes still receive ICX rewards. This not only dilutes the stakes of all community participants, but also weakens the rewards of contributors to the ICON Network.



I’m not part of any P-rep team. I disagree with your statement. ICX staking rewards are no free lunch for Iconists. They need to actively follow up or suffer the risks. FYI, wait to disqualify and the coins will be burned. Do it asap and they will not suffer the burn. They will however lose out on the staking rewards if they do not revote.

P-reps who are inactive (not running node) do not get rewards. Why would inactive Iconists deserve staking rewards?



We spend weekends working step by step trying to create our proposal,our plan for future with Icon, we stay updated on all your social channels and telegram. We had few problems with prep tools but now we are registered onchain. Next step will be running node. We work full time and we have our own projects so please don’t forget about it. For now ICON is not giving any profits and we still invest our own money and time. Please give as a time till the end of month so we can start running the node.

Thank you guys for all the support and your help and understanding.

Best Regards


Wojciech Waszczuk


Thanks for your reply, Wojciech. We have removed your Manifest-ICON from the inactive list.


What that means is that P-Reps should set an example by their active participation.

The information that disqualification burn is not yet actually active came much later after we voted. If we knew that, we’d vote for “yes”.

We operated under the assumption that passing this vote would result in burning ~ 25k ICX. We are decentralized only for two weeks now and there are valid reasons why a person couldn’t have paid attention to this - e.g. hospitalization. We felt that not all available means of communication were already used to reach Iconists who would be influenced by this. Restricting someone’s property should not be taken lightly. Why do you think ICON Foundation still runs token swaps?


Tomas, even I, not having the same access to Icon Foundation team as you P-reps, knew coin burn feature was not yet active. I also doubt the other P-reps would have done it if they were not sure about a potential coin burn consequence.


We had an information that low productivity penalty is not active. Disqualification by vote is a completely different thing and nobody ever said it’s wasn’t active until today early morning (depending on your timezone).
We, P-Reps, had a discussion about that poll right after it was created and at that time, nobody suggested the burn was not active. Those, who voted “yes” at that time, considered burn a necessary collateral damage.