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.
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.
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.
If you really think @BrightSilence is just a parrot for the company, then you have either not been in these forums long enough or not read many of his posts.
This message has been reiterated many, many, many times and you are, of course, perfectly entitled to ignore it, but don’t then be surprised if things don’t work out as you planned.
Anyway, I don’t wish to cause any bad blood here, I will only wish you a very good night and a pleasant rest. Tomorrow will be another day
I’m literally describing how I run my nodes. Which I decided upon by looking at what’s reasonable and profitable. You’ll notice that I included HDD prices into that calculation, which doesn’t match the Storj advise. But I have bought HDD’s as well as external HDD bays for Storj specifically. However I can’t be profitable if I run a whole server dedicated for Storj. I’m my own person, thank you very much.
I can only express a small smile and point you to The Manifesto (link) by @syncamide and @Willie and Co. as well as to my concerns related to the proposed pricing strategy and to some basic questions associated with it. Good night. :- )
There are things I agree and disagree with you here… But the main one I do agree is the whole PC consumption.
On a 5-year scale, a PC with a mere global 80w consumption (including the hard drives) will do 0,08 kWh * 24h * 365 * 5 = 3504 kWh. With the same reference rate at 0,15$ per kWh, we’d be looking at 525,60$ for consumption. That is closer to the real consumption on a regular desktop PC, on the use-case Storj wants to have.
Bandwidth isn’t paid for at an enough scale that justifies in my opinion considering the cost, since it’s only 500gb/month. And a SNO should optimize its assets - if you accept 600 USD for 30TB HDD’s that renders a very high 20 USD/TB, when having it substantially lower is possible (although with an energy cost increase, there’s a transfer).
However, hardware depreciation, WACC and especially time, be it the initial or subsequent manteinances, should be taken into consideration. Also you’re not taking into consideration held amount on the calculation, and that should be taken into account.
The server consumption and its hardware costs are excluded from this quote for a reason, that this server has been bought and operated before Storj, so these costs and energy consumption already paid. You didn’t expect to cover them with income from some future usage. When you run storagenode, you add some energy consumption on running the software, when you bought a new disk for the storage node, it’s included to the costs and power consumption. And you see a result of these calculations.
Well, right now this really looks like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (“натягивание совы на глобус”) in terms of economic calculations. We just need to admit that in reality, storage node operators’ investments in the nodes are always and significantly above zero. Therefore, especially for regions with expensive electricity and non-unlimited internet, it seems that the current payouts are already at that threshold beyond which it doesn’t make sense to maintain a storage node.
You are literally saying the opposite of what has been discussed ad nauseam. Did you read at least this thread?
Storj: don’t buy anything, use existing servers that are running anyway
Users: “we need to admit that” our “investment in the nodes are significantly above zero”
Storj: ??? What did I just said?!
If you admit to what you said - great, you are admitting you have misunderstood the whole project, and can now correct your mistake by existing the node.
Considering the concerns shared by many here, it might be beneficial for you to consult with an optometrist, as one of the forum members suggested. And I do not intend to discuss the economics of SNO with you.
What concerns? Who shared? Specifics please. All I see is a few confused people with unrealistic expectations and sense of entitlement.
I see. You only discuss things with people you already agree with. Great strategy. Top notch.
It’s amazing you bothered and managed
to type the whole three paragraphs with zero signal, all noise.
If you have specific questions — ask. If you disagree with me — point out where I am wrong. That would be constructive. Because otherwise it’s a whiny 5 year old that did not get his way.
bro!
Why this mythical number of nodes?
There could be at least a million of them, it’s not difficult.
It’s just fake - don’t look at that number.
Only the number /24 networks is important.
It’s just that /24 has not been growing anywhere for a long time, because IP are not free, unlike the fake concept - the number of nodes .
It is relatively easy for one node operator to have multiple nodes, maybe even running on the same drive/array. However, they are not really separate. If the operator decides to stop, he will most likely stop all of his nodes. All nodes in a /24 are treated as one big node by the network anyway.
Separate /24 subnets are more difficult to get, so they probably more accurately indicate the number of node operators. Still, there are some operators who run nodes on multiple subnets (they probably should not though, as it more likely means that the nodes run on dedicated hardware). Number of different wallets may be another measure, but not all node operators get paid every month.
