You need to read their documentation how to buy tokens. STORJ token is a usual ERC20 token on the Ethereum network, nothing special. All you need is to make sure that this wallet supports STORJ tokens.
Me trying to understand crypto:
You need to read their documentation how to buy $&^@$&. STORJ $&^@$& is a usual !(#&^@!$ $&^@&$^ on $&@^$&^@$&, nothing special. All you need is to make sure that this !&#!&#^$ supports STORJ $&^@$&.
Fully agree. Give me ApplePay button. I don’t care about anything else. I don’t want to bother to even enter my credit card data, much less fiddle with fake money and this crypto mumbo jumbo.
Accepting payments shall be as frictionless as possible. Nothing shall stand between customer handing money and service provider accepting them.
Then, everyone (who is interested in buying the service in any meaningful amounts) has a credit/charge/debit card. What they universally don’t have — is time to mess with fake tokens and transferring funds between speculators, feeding a horde of freeloaders, wasting resources on useless computations.
I’m so tired of this shit it’s incredible. I have money. Let me pay for the service. Don’t send me on a fools errand swapping fantasy money.
You have it. But need to use Safari.
The same for a Google Pay - you need to use Chrome under the account with enabled Google Pay.
There could be other payment methods, like wire transfers, but depends on a location.
See Payment Methods and Policies - Storj Docs
Nice! Even recurrent payments are supported! I must have missed it, or perhaps it was added somewhere within last two years.
An UI bug:
- I had a card manually entered as default.
- I’ve added another card via applepay
- Now I try to delete the original card
- Because its default, I’m presented with the dialog that I first need to select a different default, and a button to do so
- I click that buttons, select the new default card, and … that’s it. The flow of deleting the original card has been interrupted. I have to start over.
What should happened instead — after selecting default I should have ended up in the same card deletion flow the detour happened from.
I shared this information with the team, but could you please submit it on our GitHub?
I’m writing because I’m really concerned about the new minimum monthly usage fee and the way account management currently works.
- Can’t remove my credit card
When I try to remove my credit card, the system says it’s the default payment method and won’t let me delete it. This means I can’t stop auto-charges even though I don’t want to keep the service. - Can’t close my account
I also tried to delete my account, but I’m required to delete all projects first. There’s a bucket that’s locked, so I can’t finish the process. It feels like I’m stuck—unable to close my account, remove my card, or avoid upcoming charges.
This combination of a new minimum fee and no easy way to leave feels really unfair to small users like me.
My Request:
- Allow users to remove a default credit card if they want to stop using the service,
- Help unlock or remove buckets so I can close my account, and
- Make sure users who request to leave aren’t charged the new minimum fee.
I hope you can look into this quickly.
please submit support ticket to team, they will help you.
Reminder that users were informed about the minimum fee implementation well ahead of it taking effect, allowing ample time to accomplish account deletion before the deadline. And help with getting an account deleted if you run into problems is only a support ticket away.
If the user has enabled object lock they are unable to close the account. I am not even sure if it can be done with a support ticket because object lock is designed to be hard to delete.
I would also challenge that the user was informed ahead of time. In my country an email notification isn’t enough for that. But thats a different problem I guess.
@ryodjea Please submit a support ticket as soon as possible. It would also be great if you could clarify in the support ticket if you want to remove the credit card and pay with storj tokens from now on. That would allow you to continue using the product without having to pay the 5$ mininum. Or close the account. I believe we can chance the account state and worry about object lock later. That should do it.
FYI emails sent out in May and June 2025 were not the only way users were notified. We also displayed a banner in the dashboard and opened a discussion thread in this forum about the impending minimum fee. We added a section to the Storj Documentation Pricing Section about the new Minimum Fee. A new FAQ about the minimum fee was also added to our website’s Pricing FAQ section. I don’t know what else we could have done beyond this to make users aware of the change. I am sure our team would appreciate suggestions.
What country and why is not email enough? User agreed, that terms of service can change any time. They received a courtesy email (and banner, and forum post, and what not, see above).
What other notification is needed here? Does the user also owe the company a registered notarized letter sent by pigeons when they decide to no longer need the company services, or change the usage? No, they just do it. Why do you expect the company to go out of their way to hunt down users and force feed them information?
Users need storage. If cost is important to them — they need to keep an eye on cost.
Cost of lettuce change daily. Do they also argue with the grocer that they didn’t receive advance notification of the price change?
I don’t buy this nonsense — I can’t pay $5 and yet I waited 8 months to notice. I don’t know what motivation is for such behavior but it’s for sure not genuine. It boggle my mind.
The way this usually works in Germany is with a popup that the user has to confirm. Ignoring the popup, closing the popup, closing the browser, continue using the service, paying the first invoice and so on doesn’t count as an agreement. It doesn’t matter how many email you would send the user or how many times you show him the new pricing in the UI. The only thing that matters is if the user presses the “agree new pricing button” or not. Not pressing the button is usually followed by stopping the service but that is not always the case. In some cases the original contract was signed for a year or had other rescrictions around termination. The company can ask for a pricing increase at any time but if the user doesn’t accept it the old contract would still continue and the company might not always have the right to terminate the contract. So in such a situation it would have no consequences for the customer to ignore the new pricing. The old contract would remain intact.
The team knows this feedback. The tricky part here is that these rules arn’t universal. For a US customer I would say we did announce the pricing the correct way. As far as I know only a few countries have stricter rules and I live in one of them.
I would appreciate if you could forward that feedback to the team. The next pricing change has been announced and I would love to see it done the correct way this time. For a 5$ difference the risk is low but migrating every customer in one year to the new archive tier might be a different story. Thanks for the reminder. I will put that on my todo list and share my feedback with the team one more time.
This is a culture thing. You might want to lookup the lawsuit netflix lost in Germany. The first thing the judge nullified was the terms of service clause that allowed the company one sided pricing changes. That isn’t going to work. Pricing changes require an approval.
I don’t think pigeons will work but its not that far off. Good old post letter would work. I didn’t mention it because we are talking about digitil services. The netflix lawsuit fits better here.
I still don’t get it. The contract has it that price can change any time. This contract continues. There was never any other promise nor any other term contract for the fixed price for the duration.
How is this different from buying apples on the supermarket? Price changed, don’t like new price — shop elsewhere. No advance notification needed.
I’m genuinely curious, albeit it may not look this way.
The whole “read and continue paying” does not constitute an agreement but clicking a button does?! How does it make sense?
It all starts with the question which parts of the contract are valid and which arn’t. As a customer I don’t need to worry to much about that. Even if the contract contains invalid parts like once sided pricing changes I can still sign it with no negative consequences. The law protects the customer in these cases. It might get tricky to get a ruling but in this case I could just use the existing Netflix lawsuit as a door opener.
This will alter the contract. It will not terminate the contract because most contracts contain at least one valid clause that protects it against this legal risk and defines that the part of the contract that is invalid just gets striked out and the remaining contract remains intact. Without that clause the entire contract would be in danger the moment one invalid clause gets found.
This would create the situation you are asking for. User has agreed the terms of services but still expects having to agree on future pricing increases.
Now to the part why the pricing increase might be invalid. To be honest I am not a lawyer. I don’t feel qualified to explain that part. I think it has to do with the question if the clause in the terms of service is benefiting one side only. I can’t tell you exactly what the problem is in this case and why it would get striked out. Again the netflix lawsuit might be better material to read about it.
The customer would argue that he never received the notification. Even if the company would proof that the user was logged he could dissmiss “read and continue paying”. That is not an agreement. To make it worse even paying several invoices doesn’t count as an agreement. The user can pay at first and can take legal steps later. The expectation is that the company has a record of when the user pressed the agree button. We have very strong customer protection in place. That should be the message of the day. There are countries on the world that have strong customer protection by law.
Thank you for taking time to explain. I understand the legal context, but strongly disagree with the whole approach as fundamentally backwards and absurd. Germany went way too far. Businesses are the very entities that drive innovation and deliver value: assume all the risk, develop technology, build infrastructure, provide a service. Consumers are the beneficiaries of this monumental effort. They consume what’s offered. And they have this obnoxious level of legal protection on top.
(I do understand that it may be more nuanced, there is an inherent information assymetry and associated potential for abuse, but this is where government regulation is for – the burden shall be on them to regulate, and not hinder value producer’s operations by unfair onesided laws)
I’m speechless. With this we can defenestrate the whole concept of commercial transactions and personal responsibility. User paying new rate is the strongest signal that they agree with the new rate, because otherwise why would they pay it?!. What indicator can be stronger? Assuming otherwsise creates incentives for consumers to abuse whatever they can whenever they get a chance. And besides, why do we need to protect people against their own inaction and willful ignorance? Crazy stuff.
I strongly sympathize with storj and any other value producer in this world that has to deal with this nonsense.
But I guess this is a discussion for a different forum.
The legal principles behind this kind of setup assume that not everyone is a lawyer who even have the skills to analyse tons of text each time an EULA shows up on screen. Should we hinder trade by forcing everyone to hire a lawyer and study all contractual obligations they enter? European law goes in a different direction: let’s make sure there are enforceable standards across all consumer contracts, so that it is easy to consume standardized products while knowing the bulk of legal obligations are put on the party that also is in better place to enforce them.
You probably recall our past conversation on credit cards.
B2B is different. If Storj was only selling to B2B, the situation would be much simpler.
We have the best example for that in this thread. Object lock prevents the user to delete the account and the first invoice will be charged automatically. You are saying that forced agreement is still an agreement. I don’t think so.
By law I am not forced to check every invoice every month. I can just pay them and spot check them from time to time. I am not an accountant that keeps track of everything. There is a cap on how far back I can fight invoices. It is not like a free ticket to do what ever I want. I think the netflix lawsuit was for 3 years or so.
Whats wrong with the last pricing increase of netflix? That was a solid one. It is not like you can’t do a pricing increase. You just need to do it right and it is not that hard. All it takes is a popup with a button and make sure to capture the timestamp the button was pressed. There is no need to send a pigeon but I still have to smile thinking about one knocking at my window with an pricing increase 
Why can’t even Storj delete locked objects? If the client looses his keys and can’t access the account anymore or a malintended user locks a huge quantity of objects and disappears, will Stoj be left with unpaid data that can’t be deleted?
Dosen’t seem productive.