Durability: Currently at Median 74pcs, min 55pcs, vs 29 minimum needed to recover.
Large healthcare companies signed & in process (but for large Enterprise node operators, as stated later, due to the fact that such data can’t be public)
Large banks and studios in process [presumably for the same type of datacenters, for the same reason?]
Current pings: <100ms EU/US, <200ms elsewhere. Brazil São Paulo 176ms, Buenos Aires 118ms.
Significant improvement last 5 months latency-wise, further improvements expected in next months with tuning [response times].
new service offerings for Q4 and next year [presumably AI/GPU data management for public and enterprise nodes?]
“we’ve seen the competitive set raising prices and as we continue to increase revenue, we will have the opportunity to revisit pricing and the node payout rates”
current payout amounts were presented as a closed process, not something under discussion, and were presented starting actually from Nov 1st, not December 1st, on the slides.
I doubt that payouts per TB stored/uploaded to clients will increase in the future, even if Storj doubles their income. We are payed in beans and accept it, why they should pay us in gold?
inflation, which is still significant on main Storj markets (EU/US)
future types of service, potentially more demanding than mere file servicing in terms of required speed, could have different pricing accordingly.
One way to improve matters in terms of pricing would indeed be source diversification…
Also I did understand why some questions, like uptime and barrier of entry etc, aren’t being addressed or introduced. They don’t need to - they have backups of data on satellite themselves, hence it’s pointless to enforce those factors. Because what they aren’t paying extra per TB to us in terms of pricing, they are paying in actually extra data, and then use it as a selling point to customers.
Reed-Solomon tuning would still be a relevant question to address regarding pricing-per-pricing, though. That was something used for the pricing issues, so it is something that influences.
Yeah because for every node that quits, there’s always a node from Russia ready to replace it. You guys don’t see a huge drop after the last payout change because all exited nodes were replaced by some Russian ones. Lol.
I fully agree with you with a direct regard to your first point that broader macroeconomic factors like CPI play a crucial role for the entity like Storj Inc. with its annual Storage Service Providers expenditures currently significantly exceeding USD 1m.
I guess that the recent decision of The Federal Reserve to hold interest rates at a 22-year high could also be to its utmost interest, especially that after 11 increases since March 2022, the benchmark federal funds rate is now between 5.25 per cent and 5.5 per cent which corresponds to the yield on the debt financing exceeding 12 per cent, which of course is in direct connection to capital rising conditions currently being imposed on companies of that size in the United Stated of North America (I deliberately and on purpose not touching crypto market conditions here, nevertheless, I consider it a pretty hot topic if not even urgent).
Would you please kindly elaborate on your few next paragraphs as they seem to sound as much interesting if not even more?
I actually wanted to say that they have more backups than expected because they are doing them on more than the 2.7 predicted by the Reed-Solomon; the “synthetic load” seems to be… actually just that, I’d believe. I should’ve written “on SNOs joining satellites themselves”, but at the time of writing I was on a rush and wrote it straight. Otherwise, where would they store the extra pieces?
Nevertheless I think the rest of my point still stands, even if my writing wasn’t at its prime. Especially the one related to Reed-Solomon. If it is a reason to keep pricing as it is, tuning it should theoretically change pricing accordingly, and it’s actually something expected soon.
To be honest, I am wondering what is your position with regard to barriers to entry, Reed-Solomon and held amount of course with a view on recent payout rates announcement and the last Town Hall call (vide dilution). And if you do not mind, I am also wondering what is your view on carbon footprint and reliability / durability, in general. EDIT: I am finding some of those things discussable. Cheers. :- )
I hear silence, so just to sum up my part, I like the project thus trying to understand it a bit better, I have to admit that so far I have more questions then answers but I am here for a relatively short time, should you have any comments please let me know, cheers.
I know this has gone stale, but I may have a controversial opinion.
My view is that of a Customer and a SNO. I have abundant storage on my system which I keep up 24/7 anyways. I also have unlimited data, but I would never have even bothered with Storj or my server if I had to pay for my data usage.
I would rather just get payments for the amount stored and have Storj offer unlimited egress to customers. In my opinion, this would create an influx of customers who would benefit from paying just for storage. Then we, as node operators would see an influx of storage as well.
In fact, I believe this might be the only way to be competitive, as BackBlaze now has offers for unlimited egress with $6/TB stored. (deferred downloads)
Like I said in previous discussions, I am very happy with the decision to keep the storage price at $1.50/TB. I have a residential internet connection that is fast, I don’t pay for traffic nor do I notice Storj’s influence on my bandwidth. As long as the storage fee of $1.5/TB remains I can be profitable.
I’ve got to agree with @Tetricz. I don’t know how other isp’s work world wide but here in UK I believe metered connections are pretty much unheard of. I’ve always thought that the pay-out structure would be easier to monitor if it was paid purely on stored amount only.
Offering free egress whould be a very bad decision. Customers could saturate our connection very easily, as good or bad behavior. Making them pay for egress is the only thing that protects us. My internet connections are used for daily internet access from other systems too, not just storage nodes. And even you as an endcustomer don’t pay for traffic to your ISP, someone up-the-line is paying for your traffic up and down. Nothing is free. There were discussions on this topic this spring.
Yeah, “not possible” a great state of mind You are coming from.
Everything is possible in programing!
Storj is a complex project, and it is necessary to look at it holistically to be able to see at all that
the mechanisms involved are interdependent and intertwined on many levels… it is POSSIBLE, with simultaneously measuring if required parameters that SNOs were agreed to, are kept, it was even proposed here long ago.
i don’t say egress has to be completely free for customers,
but could be! - if that would be the decision.
No need to repeat that,
its been debunked some times here on forum
read more than write please, or i will have to repeat my self every single time.
Would not kill the performance.
Would bring a lot of data in, if egress would be next to free.
And that data ISN’T KEPT FOR FREE!
SNOs would be filling HDD’s very fast.
isn’t it what SNOs want?
And if some nodes would cap the egress, then DQ,
and more data for the rest of us.
Also no one would want to cap the egress if he would risk being DQ,
if the HDD would fill fast.
Again its interdependent and intertwined
Cant have one, without a bunch of another…
It would put You at risk, if the proposed mechanisms that DQ You, for not meeting the upload minimum required by STORJ, was implemented,
and they are NOT at the moment.
I’ve written really a lot about it in my posts, like in this thread
The whole thread, a discussion with Alex,
And also here, arguing that there PROBABLY would not be problem with egress power from side of SNOs, as we all have very good connections, and a lot of us got 1Gb/s fiber in homes.
Yea, that’s why i dont like the free egress idea without limits.
Either with some limits, or really cheap egress from the start,
eventually like $1-2/TB for customers.
for now, its possible to give them at $2,5/TB rate,
by asking 2 times more for storage BUT 2,8 times LESS for traffic cost.
(from $4/TB stor. and $7/TB egress to $7,9/TB stor. and $2,5/TB egress)
I don’t know if I would do that, but hypothetically, if there was a minimum upload speed required by TOS and actually checked, I would nto be able to shape the upload speed below the minimum. However, there would not be any incentive for having it higher than the minimum either. Right now, I want my node to win as many upload races as possible, so I do not limit its upload speed (the connection speed is only limited by the ISP). If egress was not paid, I could throttle the upload speed of the node down to 5mbps or whatever the minimum is + 10% and keep it there.
