- but it don’t. That’s the point.
it’s all about fair share of profits, and feeling of justice.
"Am i being ripped off? " - a SNO might think.
no body wants to help someone who is taking for it self unjustly.
And most of us is here in large to help and contribute to a good cause despite the money.
At least until ...
… it is good cause, pushing technology forward in first place,
and if one, who is putting the effort into checking that his nodes work well, often every day, taking time to discover and report bugs, find out that the company would be taking 70% of the revenue for all that to itself and leaving him with only 30%, then he might feel bad about that, or exploited, as You can see in that or another SNOs not necessary irrational behavior, @arrogantrabbit .
Especially if things used to be that companys, that coordinates the efforts takes usually smaller percentage of the whole income, according to the saying:
“I’d rather earn 1% from the efforts of 100 people than 100% from my own efforts.”
I’m afraid here it looks more like:
“I’d rather earn 70% from the efforts of 100 SNOs than 100% from my own efforts.”
IF True, doesn’t look the best at the moment, just to answering You.
Will STORJ inc. keep prices for customers at 7$/TB egress then?
and give 2$ to SNOs and keep 5$?
Because now it is at 6$ to SNOs, and 1$ to STORJ inc.
What is too little for STORJ inc. as well
so i come up here with TLDR: better balance proposition in short
Soooo will there be also cut in prices for customers?
that’s the main question that should be asked.
i think not, i think it just shows that people don’t track, don’t check,
because they are here not so much for only money, to be so 1 or 2$ seeking here or there.
and if they will finally check, that doesn’t mean they will be happy.
Or they will be so unhappy to leave, as we are here rather to contribute.
But that doesn’t mean it feels good, if company could share more with us, but it don’t.
And i mean it could if rearrangement be done in direction for example like from my proposition.
And We are beta pilots here, in order to growth globally the company needs more than just enthusiasts like us. I am afraid that the current revenue sharing will not take.
Evidence for people don’t track is for example in this topic:
4 TB node has been full the past few months, still only 2.17 TBm storage paid
Turned out that nodes were underpaid for storage as far back as 7 months.
(but storage payment in 1,5$/TB didn’t matter back then, if egress was yet payed 20$/TB.)
i checked my nodes, turned out to be true for me too,
my full 7TB node didn’t got payed for the real data it was holding:
because the payment is being made upon a stat, that need a full filewalker function to complete its action, which means counting all the files which my node has ~16 million, mostly small files, and it takes 6-7 days even with enough RAM (i allocated 7GB, i can do 14GB but it seems it just does not get any faster in small files counting despite more RAM)
it’s normal PC, quite modern, win10, storagenode GUI.
(processor AMD 4700GE, 8/16 cores,
DDR4 3200MHz RAM, sata III, 8TB HDD HelioSeal WD Ultrastar)
i takes 6-7 days for windows to count the files as well,
so its not any STORJ app disadvantage here:
The problem is, that filewalker seems to be unable to finish its work in one sitting over that 6-7days. I noticed any shutdown, which can happen spontaneously, and unexpected, (i found that in logs to my surprise), just cancels it’s work, and when it got to start again, it starts from 0. Seems he don’t remember when he finished, making it unable to finish, if just one restart of storj servcie will occur over those 6-7 days, in this case.
That’s @jammerdan quotes, from this topic: here
So im being paid for 4,81TB, and my nodes actually holds 6,41TB, and the dashboard shows 6,98TB. That’s all because filewalker wasn’t been able to finish its work without interruption over course of 6-7 days.
I’m telling all this, because even enthusiast like me, just found that recently, after 7 months,
(i could raise this to attention sooner: filewalker improvement needed asap (as of 26.10.2023)
I’m telling this example because its important for the topic,
because 1-2$ back or forth per disk, per month didn’t matter back then,
if egress for SNOs was payed 20$/TB in Mar, Apr, May 2023.
After Jun 1, 2023 it was 6$/TB.
But now, with plans from Dec 1, 2023 for 2$/TB
NOW, that 1,5$/TB alone, for storage space, suddenly becoming vital for SNOs.
So if STORJ inc. showed, its going to cut egress too,
going into direction of low egress pay, similar like my TLDR: better balance proposition in short
(and STORJ employes was raising concerns that low egress payout would make SNOs to cap theirs egress, and now STORJ inc. is doing 2$/TB, that is low. One of similar conversation in topic:
which i replied: well then just a proper audit mechanism should be implemented (And Alex pointed that a way to do it, even happened to be proposed by @BrightSilence already: Distribute audits across storagenodes)
(Above quotes from this Thread here)
and now, STORJ inc. is cutting egress to 2$/TB
what about prices for customers?
(@Vadim i belive You got that wrong, hetzen egress is 1,19€/TB for customers, 20TB is just a free traffic, according to official website:
“With at least 20 TB of included traffic, you’ll have lots of bandwidth for your projects, regardless of which Hetzner Cloud package you choose. But if you need, you may add more for an extra € 1.19 a month per TB.” from Official hetzner site
So dear STORJ inc.
if You are lowering to 2$/TB, now the topic of measuring whether nodes meet the required parameters is key important, to indeed prevent some from capping egress traffic (upload from nodes).
After it’s done, i think STORJ inc. could lower the prices for customers, similar to my proposition, that would in my opinion strongy moves the usage of whole STORJ network for customers and level up STORJ’s popularity and profits to it’s new HIGHS for STORJ inc. and for SNOs both!