Announcement: Changes to node payout rates as of December 1st 2023 (Open for comment)

It’s not really possible due to how sparse audits are. 5% is not the correct number though. It’s tuned now to allow up to 2% loss to survive. Below 4% is guaranteed to get you disqualified and anything between 2% and 4% you can survive if you’re lucky. Due to the sparse sampling it can’t really be lowered much and doesn’t have to be either. The network can easily deal with nodes having these amounts of data loss. And like you said, in cases where loss is bigger that HDD is likely gone soon anyway. So no real need to change things.


Yeah, for simplicity sake, I left out the lottery part. The 5% would only be true if 100% of the data would be audited.
There was a calculation from the devs floating around in the forum some time ago.

Do you mean above?

I did, yes. My bad.

Yes, it was on the topic where @thepaul and I exchanged ideas, simulations and data prior to the retuning of the audit score and allowed limits. In a feature suggestion topic I started. It’s a long thread though, but for reference: Tuning audit scoring


Sorry, the purpose of my text was not to cast doubt on Storj, just the fact that the expansion factor in reality is lower than 2,7. It can be tuned by setting repair worker settings i would imagine.

What I’m saying is that the expansion rate of 80/29 is a simplification.

As far as I know then indeed there are 110 pieces created, when 80 have been uploaded the transfer is considered finished. Nothing wrong here.

As time goes by, pieces are lost (i would imagine slightly faster at first, then somewhat slower as the number decreases) and when the online number reaches like 50-55 or so, 29 of them are downloaded, expanded into 110 pieces and uploaded again until around 80 are finished.

So the real number of stored (and therefore paid for pieces) are between 50-55 and 80 for any given segment.


Yeah, absolutely. I was not taking your words in that way. I was referring to $1.5 by myself and was wondering if that number has a real basis. It could turn out (re 2.7) and appear like that just only because of @IsThisOn.

Well, I think the company is interesting. I somehow got to like it due to several reasons. What I started not to like about this company is a kind of … I do not know how to say it … a double bottom. I sometimes think that the company thinks that the reliability is this, carbon footprint is this and something else is this but in reality those things are very different. Usually it is better for the company if there is no such a thing, I mean no double bottom. If there is, it sets the whole company operations on some artificial ground. Also the pricing strategy is one of the most important things around like a kind of a backbone thus I am reading this thread. I have to admit that I just do not quite understand this strategy, however, as it is very hard to make a judgement on those things without spending substantial amount of time understanding environmental and operational factors I kind of keep myself as quiet as it is only possible.

I do not know if you saw this thread by @syncamide and @Willie and Co. and their Manifesto (link). I cant say that I am associating myself with every single line and every single word but I really like how those things have been explained there and I am also impressed by the way how they are handling things so far (I would like to underline so far). To be honest, I joined the network mostly inspired by @Th3Van’s rig so I have to say that this announcement was a bit disappointing, like you know … the situation … you coming here to have some fun and what … you finding yourself with … metadata oriented file system on every side. {EDIT} I just make the edit and add a … :- ).


Agree. I think the community, the tech, and the cult are very interesting to watch.

I also don’t like how they communicated the payout changes.
It does not look great if a company thinks it needs to cut corners on a very small pending point while being nebulous with the other spending.

But to be fair, from a math standpoint it was always clear from the beginning that around 2$ would be the right amount. And that was with the old prices of the competition. I think there have to be further price cuts to offer an attractive product to customers. We have to just wait and see.
Will there be price cuts for customers? Which means further price cuts for SNO.
Will S3 be phased out? Are customers ready to switch to native?
Will there be network growth with the current pricing?

I agree, when I first read the announcement, t came off as “we dropped the rates, but not enough of you left, so we are dropping them again, maybe you’ll get the hint now”


Yeah, as for the communication strategy, it is one of the worst I have ever seen, how can you tell your major stakeholders, “do not buy anything”, or something like this was written the previous time, really how long the credit line extension. :- )

I don’t think I can agree with you.
The way I see it, they have gone out of their way to explain the rationale for the drops. I understand many people may not be vey happy but I always got the impression that they do try their best to treat SNOs with respect and keep them “in the loop” insofar as is reasonable and practical.
I would hazard a guess that they devote a considerable amount of man-hours (am I still allowed to use that expression?) communicating with and placating the SNO community and have always remained unfailingly polite and professional, even when attacked in some rather excessive ways.

But anyway, that’s just my point of view.


I take your point. I just almost do not participate in all those meetings. I was referring to the last two price announcements expressed on this forum explicitly. Also to what I called “double bottom” and “operations taking place on some artificial ground”.

1 Like

I agree. It’s in part the curse of open communication. If you open the door to dialogue and communication, it will never be enough for some. And you trigger a lot of negative responses over the course of that dialogue. While some other companies would just announced “This is what it’s going to be” and not respond to the feedback at all. People so easily forget that we were looking at proposed storage payouts between $0.75-1.00 not too long ago.


Yes, twitter comes to mind.

I think you’ll find it’s “X” :smirk:

Well, no hard feelings, but, how much can you communicate, especially if one is hearing, do not buy anything, extend the credit line, if you don’t like conditions here is the exit.

I quote you something:

If you look at a 5 year time frame, a single subnet with sufficient space would make around $1600 over that time and have about 30TB stored. Subtract the cost of HDD’s and you still have $1000 and space to spare. Using about 8w per hdd, for 2 hdd’s that’s 0.008 kw * 2 hdd’s * 24 hours * 365 days * 5 years = 700.8kw. At a low US rate of $0.15 per kwh, you’d pay about $105 for that. Leaving almost $900 profit. But even better, at that time you’re making around $50 a month, HDD’s would be cheaper and you don’t even need 2 of them for that whole period.

Where are the costs associated with CPUs, bandwidth, additional IPs, hardware depreciation, WACC (weighted average cost of capital) and time. FYI, not only you is communicating. :- )

But this is a perfectly reasonable thing for any company to say!
They have no obligation to cater to everyone’s specific circumstances. They have decided that the survival of the company requires them to make these changes.
They are also aware that these changes will mean the model will no longer work for some people.
It is logical that they would say that you’re free to leave (unlike some comment about “working in a dictatorship” that someone made earlier).
It’s not pleasant but it’s logical and reasonable.


I am not sure I can agree with you here. But again, I would prefer to restrain myself from any hard judgements, again, due to the fact that I have not done any in depth environment and operational analysis.

However, I would like to say that I got the feeling that there might be too much focus on price reductions and too little on specialization and user experience. Price is a very specific competitive advantage, but I am not saying its not possible here, just do not understand so much lamenting, especially now.

Anyway, its getting late in my geographic location, thanks for the chat.

I understand, however, I am just wondering, if you understand what I had on my mind when writing those posts. I was questioning this strategy you are referring to and some of the information that it is based on. And I was hoping to receive some additional information from the company representative. Only this, nothing more, maybe some parts of the communication strategy wrt to those price announcements that are and were making those announcements so controversial.

1 Like

That was for a single IP with a bandwidth amount that the majority of home connections these days can handle without issues. HDD costs are included, so that covers depreciation entirely. CPU was excluded intentionally since you shouldn’t run Storj on dedicated hardware or at most something really low power which you can see from the calculation will cut significantly into your earnings. And if you’re concerned about WACC, I’m not sure what kind of operation you intend to run, but I’d say your way off track for what Storj is intended to be.

I’m not sure what you meant by your last sentence.

1 Like

I am sorry, but I got a feeling that you are repeating what you have been told to say and what I was referring to when writing about a double bottom. Thanks for the chat. I am off.