Community Diligence Review of Niwan Dao Allocator

[filecoin-watchdog]

Review of Allocations from @Niwan-dao
Allocator Application: filecoin-project/notary-governance#1081

First example:
DataCap was given to:
NiwanDao/NiwanPathway#10

Public Open Dataset - key compliance requirement: Retrievability

1st point)
No sign of KYC or KYB of client or dataset as mentioned in allocator application - need gov team to investigate details
Client asked for 10PiB and 1PiB of DataCap given to brand new GitHub ID.

2nd point)
Client said these were the SPs
Hainan future cloud Technology Co., f02933536, Ningxia
Hainan future cloud Technology Co., f02933563 ,Ningxia
Siwei Technology Co.,Technology Co.,f03083319, Chengdu
Youyun Tech,tobecreated, Hongkong
qitian yun ,tobecreated, nanjing

Actual data storage report:
https://check.allocator.tech/report/NiwanDao/NiwanPathway/issues/10/1716967283901.md

Provider | Location | Total Deals Sealed | Percentage | Unique Data | Duplicate Deals | Mean Spark Retrieval Success Rate 7d
f03083319 | Qingdao, Shandong, CNHangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd. | 393.41 TiB | 100.00% | 393.41 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%

One SP ID has sealed 40% of deals
Additional diligence needed to confirm storage plan

Finally, 0% retrievability for an open dataset

[filecoin-watchdog]

Next example:
NiwanDao/NiwanPathway#7

Client again unknown, asked for 10PiB was given 1PiB. - Gov team needs to check client KYC KYB. Not clear from application.

No SPs mentioned upfront.

Same trend as before, only one storage provider taking deals
Provider | Location | Total Deals Sealed | Percentage | Unique Data | Duplicate Deals | Mean Spark Retrieval Success Rate 7d
f01782100 | Nanjing, Jiangsu, CNJiangsu Wuxi International IDC network | 11.28 TiB | 100.00% | 11.28 TiB | 0.00%

Finally, 0% retrievability for an open dataset

[filecoin-watchdog]

Third example:
NiwanDao/NiwanPathway#1

Client is the Allocator. Gave themself two allocations - 500TiBs and 1000 TiBs

One SP has sealed 40%+ of the deals

Provider | Location | Total Deals Sealed | Percentage | Unique Data | Duplicate Deals | Mean Spark Retrieval Success Rate 7d
f02933563 | Yinchuan, Ningxia, CNCHINANET NINGXIA province ZHONGWEI IDC network | 148.94 TiB | 4.03% | 148.94 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f02933536 | Yinchuan, Ningxia, CNCHINANET NINGXIA province ZHONGWEI IDC network | 128.81 TiB | 3.48% | 128.81 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f02889390 | Shenzhen, Guangdong, CNCHINANET-BACKBONE | 1.58 PiB | 43.65% | 1.58 PiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f01946104 | Chengdu, Sichuan, CNCHINANET-BACKBONE | 660.00 TiB | 17.85% | 660.00 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f02035252 | Chengdu, Sichuan, CNCHINANET-BACKBONE | 408.47 TiB | 11.05% | 408.47 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f01225783 | Chengdu, Sichuan, CNCHINANET-BACKBONE | 50.00 TiB | 1.35% | 50.00 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f02966277new | Singapore, Singapore, SGGoDaddy.com, LLC | 445.09 TiB | 12.04% | 445.09 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%
f03083319 | Qingdao, Shandong, CNHangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd. | 242.50 TiB | 6.56% | 242.50 TiB | 0.00% | 0.00%

SPs - applicant said this is a continuation of a previous project: filecoin-project/filecoin-plus-large-datasets#2300

Retrieval success rate = 0%

[galen-mcandrew]

Based on a further diligence review, this allocator pathway is not in compliance with their application.

Specifically:

• No evidence of diligence with client (no verification of client claims)
• Allocations did not match tranche schedule (not scaling trust over time)
• Subsequent allocations given despite noncompliant client deal-making (no verification of data legitimacy)
• No retrievability for datasets, despite claims of public open data by both allocator and client (not showing distributed network data storage utility)

Given these details, this allocator will not receive a subsequent allocation request to the root key holders at this time.

[NiwanDao]

Firstly, I would like to apologize for the delay in my response, as personal matters had taken priority. I am now fully dedicated to resuming my role as an allocator. After engaging in discussions with the clients who previously applied under my allocator and their corresponding storage providers, as well as holding multiple meetings with my team, I would like to address the points raised in the compliance review and provide clarification:

1. Insufficient Due Diligence with the client

   • Reasoning

     • There are three clients associated with my allocator, I will address each case individually:
       • Qihe Technology: I scheduled an in-person meeting with the client and verified both the individual and the company’s credentials. However, I failed to properly document this progress in the relevant communication thread.
       • HRRR Dataset: This individual has previously participated in the Filecoin Ecosystem as a Storage Provider and has demonstrated strong capabilities in data storage. Having worked with him on the HRRR dataset last year, I trusted his expertise and enthusiasm, which led me to conclude he was eligible and reliable to apply. However, I failed to document the details.
       • Myself: This dataset is a continuation of a previous project and the subsequent allocation was cut-off with the new mechanism to grant Datacap, I mistakenly assumed that I did not need to undergo verification, which was an oversight on my part.

   • Amendment

     • I will strictly adhere to the SOP for client onboarding, regardless of the client's prior familiarity with the program. Additionally, I will ensure thorough documentation and record-keeping to publicly demonstrate my efforts in conducting due diligence.

2. Retrievability Rate on Storage Provider

   • Reasoning
     • One of the primary causes of the low retrievability rate is the extended adaptation period required for Storage Providers to transition to Spark Retrieval. Previously, they were accustomed to using Graphsync or HTTP, and most of their software did not directly support Spark. For example, some Storage Providers were unable to locate their storage provider (SP) on CID contract, which necessitated reconfiguring their index provider settings to support HTTP indexing. However, during the most recent sync, they were made aware of this required change, and as a result, the retrievability rate is now on an upward trend.
   • Amendment
     • I will closely coordinate with both clients and Storage Providers, taking on the role of a knowledge facilitator. This will involve actively communicating with them about the latest updates on retrieval processes and ensuring they are well-informed about best practices.

I recognize the areas where my diligence and compliance fell short and have already begun implementing corrective measures. I respectfully request reconsideration of the decision, with assurance that all future actions will be fully compliant with the outlined processes and requirements.
Thanks for your time, and I am looking forward to your response. @galen-mcandrew @filecoin-watchdog

[Kevin-FF-USA]

Hi @NiwanDao ,

Shifting our Slack DM here for easier threading. The behavior in the distributions didn't follow any of the framework that was outlined in the application. Taking into account your length as a Notary in the past I changed the label from audit in process to Needs Governance to have a final review of the information you provided and if it accounts for the diligence discrepancies.

In the meantime, linking to any updated Bookkeeping you've done, or Retrieval % would benefit the case for diligence compliance progress.

[Kevin-FF-USA]

Hi @NiwanDao
Wanted to follow up on this, had left it open for some time while we processed other renewals and received new pathway applications. Unable to secure additional Datacap for this pathway given the issues in maintaining compliance, but if interested in returning as an Allocator in the future, here are the steps for re-applying.
https://blog.allocator.tech/2024/05/rolling-applications-are-open-for.html

Since there are already 60+ active pathways that are doing Manual Reviews, only prioritizing the applications which are building tooling under a different pathway than Manual. Here is a blog with additional details https://blog.allocator.tech/2024/04/allocator-tech-blog.html