Hilarious how many SNOs here are speaking up and clearly abusing VPN/VPS to get around the /24 rule.
2/3rds of the network have their IPs classified as “hosting”.
Radical idea: just initiate a massive repair to ISP only IPs and ban all the nodes behind hosting. You’ll probably reduce a lot of people in it for pure profit.
Yes, and pure = 0 ))))))))))))))))
Out of my 8 nodes 6 are behind CGNAT and I’m using Oracle VPS to route their traffic.
I’m not against banning vpn connected nodes – given the surplus – but not everyone who uses vpn is cheating. And I don’t think it’s possible to tell them apart easily (I guess over time via correlation analysis)
These filings are public anyway, see here.
Perhaps the Community now have a chance to be more involved, including leading the marketing and sales teams using this proposal:
@jammerdan I would like to invite you to take a chance to lead one or the combined sales+marketing team
Interesting, can we implement some voting system using the same mechanism? 
This is how the Select works. It requires a contract, SLA, 24*7 monitoring, High Availability (connections, power, hardware, replacements) and staffs.
I don’t use VPS or VPN to bypass the /24 rule. I was just lucky with my ISP, which has a large number of different /24 subnets and provides public IPs from them. Honestly, I wouldn’t even know how to set up a VPS or VPN for Storj. So, I can honestly say I’m playing by the rules. 
But each External IP also cost you money?
I’m still waiting for answears to my questions on the buyout thread. Even Storj employee dosen’t understand what Storj proposes.
If becoming a co-owner of Storj inc with papers and all is on the table, that will only make sense for an US citizen, who is accustomed with US laws. I’ve heard enough IRS horror stories. 
Another variant would be to implement some sort of voting power according to the Storj token you put out, but that will only favour the big guys who will vote for their beneffit. And watching the other threads, I found it impossible for us SNOs to get into agreement with anything. So that would fail too.
for me it’s 1 $ per IP)
No, by voting I mean that, I suggested @jammerdan to be selected to lead a marketing/sales team and put my tokens to support my vote. Something like that 
I honestly don’t know, what could work, since I’m not an US citizen too and barely heard about some US regulatory laws.
Are people in this for something else than profit?
I mean, I have to run the server, occasionally check if the node works and so on. Why would I do it for free (either for 0 EUR or for just enough to compensate for the exact additional expenses that I have because of the node)?
As far as I know, Storj is a for-profit company, so it also does this for pure profit.
As for the yet another payout reduction - if it comes with a corresponding traffic increase - sure, whatever. If the traffic stays the same, then with a lower payment, my interest in keeping the node running also goes down. That does not mean I will just shut it down, but I would be less interested in monitoring it.
I would not start a new node even with the current payouts, let’s say if I got another internet connection or another location to put a server. I get about $23/month for my node (started in 2019 and it was out of space only for a couple of weeks). That would not be worth installing a new VM and setting up the node.
Please take a look on this thread:
There’s a big difference between hosting a couple of TB’s at home to offset your electricity costs of the other parts of your homelabs vs hundreds of TB and needing to min-max. It’s not hard to analyze the payouts and find that it’s very heavy tailed. If you don’t like my “for pure profit” wording replace it with whatever words you feel describe these large SNOs.
I have 17TB with about 12TB free space. The reason it’s not more is that I only have one IP. I may be able to get another one though.
I would not even bother with 2TB or so. It would take forever to get enough tokens to be worth going to the exchange to sell them.
The people who have hundreds of TB can probably take a payout hit better than the smaller ones. I mean if I could fill my server with data, I could take the same total payout (say, $30), but it would mean a lower rate than now. Conversely, if the amount of data dropped, my expenses would still stay the same, so I would want a higher rate.
I didn’t like your “for profit” wording because this operation is for profit. Storj works for profit, node operators run the nodes for profit. It’s not like SETI@home where you help look for aliens and nobody expects to make a profit.
I don’t think Storj should try to get rid of the large node operators as a group. If they don’t like the rates, they will leave by themselves. But then again - is it better if the data is stored on the larger nodes with UPSs and such or on smaller nodes with likely no UPS or redundancy?
Plot twist. Even at SETi program someone get profit 
(construction people, and officials who probably Malversed half the taxpayer funds while doing it )
Interesting under this chapter 11, storj can drop storj toke and pay in USDC.
It will make less loses for all, less conversion, no price up and down. it will be easier even for Storj itself. their coins will not lose value. Storj have no coin reserves, it dosnt make sense to hold token.
I see that hivemapper done the same, they started to pay in USDC and dropped Honey tokens.
Guys, my view of where we are.
The next step in the evolution of the Storj concept is further decentralisation of the
satellite layer. Storj Labs has failed as a satellite operator. That happens in business,
and it is not the end of the protocol — it is only the end of the assumption that one
company should be the only satellite anyone can point a node at.
On a personal level I am sorry for the Storjlings, including the ones here on the forum.
But I want to be precise about why this does not read as a company I would put money into:
One concrete piece of advice if the SNO rates really do change: use the held amount as a
lever. Offer me 50% now or 100% after a year and I take the year, every time. That turns
an obligation you cannot currently meet into voluntary term financing from the people
with the strongest interest in the network surviving. It costs nothing today, and the
take-up tells you exactly how much operator confidence you have left. If that number is
low, better to learn it now than in the next filing.
While we are on the held amount, something this month has made obvious and that I had
never thought about properly. We all know the parameters — how much is withheld and when
it comes back. None of us knows the custody: where that money actually sits and whose it
legally is in the meantime. It turns out the answer is that there is no pot. It is a line
in a database, and what backs it is the operator’s balance sheet. That is not a deposit,
it is an unsecured claim with a repayment schedule attached. I do not think anyone lied
to us about this. I think nobody asked, because there was never a second operator to ask
it of.
To be clear: I do not want Storj Labs to disappear, and I will keep my nodes running as
long as I can. I am not in this for the money — I am in it for the learning, the fun and
the concept. To the commercial SNOs threatening to leave: please do. I will take as much
of that data as my two drives can hold.
The protocol was designed for many satellites. We have spent seven years finding out what
happens when there is one. Whatever comes out of this court process, that is the part I
would like the discussion to move to.
That is a bit outdated. There is another satellite including instruction how to join it…
I think you should avoid using too many anecdotes. Whether large or small operators can take a payout cut hit will vary.
Also the problem of redundancy is irrelevant, it’s baked into the network. You literally have a large SNO in this thread threatening to abruptly drop hundreds of TBs from the network instead of gracefully exiting, so they think they are hot shit. Then again, maybe that says more about the exit mechanism itself.