This is requirements from the customers, who do not want to store on the public Storj network because of lack of SOC2 certification. Thus - we implemented this, it will costs more for such customers, but otherwise we would not have them at all.
I do not think that the public network could vanish, not everyone wants a more expensive SOC2-compliance, there are plenty of customers who just want a better price, decentralization, end-to-end encryption, CDN-like behavior (the speed would be the same from any place in the world), global availability and s3-compatibility.
4 Likes
Thats the official Argumentation, and thats quite ok.
But the DC-Nodes are cheaper for Storj, why should they Not Move the whole Network?
Nevertheless its a optimal threat to lower the SNO-Payment-Rates.
This is Not an accusation, i can understand this and its logical decision. But it makes me sad about the idea of the Network and the private SNO, thats all.
They are cost nothing as a public ones. I did not get what do you mean?
The certification itself is costly, so if we would to consider that, then SOC2-complience nodes will costs more, thus it costs more for the customers. There are also complications about reliability (they are in a few datacenters), so it requires development to make it not less reliable as a public one. However, the public one will be always superior in the context of distribution. So always trade-offs, the public network will have own customers, the SOC2 - own.
Or please elaborate.
Specifically:
- The commercial node operators have a significantly different cost structure. Because of the scale at which they operate they typically accept much lower payout rates because of the efficiency of their operations. But due to the removal of the /24 restriction on these data sets the operators can still have meaningful earnings despite receiving payout rates that are lower than the public network.
I take it as the commercial node operators willing to accept lower payouts than the public node operators. As such, the commercial nodes would be cheaper for Storj even if Storj did not charge the SOC2 customers more.
Unless, of course, the commercial node operators now get more than the proposed rates for the public node operators.
But how many customers actually use the native uplink or run their own gateways instead of using the edge services which remove the encryption aspect and partially remove the decentralization aspect.
3 Likes
It may cost more for clients but Knowledge has indicated it is cheaper for Storj thus there is nothing stopping Storj implementing a cheaper tier for clients with perhaps less features.
Thus, so long as there is the capacity available replacement of the public network is still viable exactly as Knowledge indicated.
1 Like
Exactly, this is as Knowledge indicated.
I see. I didnāt think it this way, sorry.
Still, we at Storj do not see any incentive to remove a public network for many reasons, include but not limited to:
And also a possibility to have a geofence (in case of SOC2 nodes there is no choice, at least now).
2 Likes
The issue is Alexey, Storj have said absolutely nothing about the Commercial network until the recent pricing issues arose. Again, communication has been a problem here.
1 Like
Please do not compare the offers of your provider, electricity costs, and the overall development of infrastructure and society in your region with other parts of the world. What is normal, usual, cheap, or expensive for you may work very differently just beyond the borders of your city, let alone the country or continent.
1 Like
Sure, but is such a customer going to put their trust in possible future expansion of the network? I would be pretty hesitant if not highly averse to decide to go with a platform that at present has nowhere near the amount of available space that you would need for your use case. I also wouldnāt want to be a customer who has like more than half of all the data stored on the network.
Iām not so sure. Last time they used similar words when they lowered prices and it took, whatā¦ years, before they aligned node payouts? Now at that time, there was a clear unit economics pressure to make changes at some point, which there isnāt anymore. Companies just never want to say āweāre never changing payouts againā or give fixed timelines, because the future is unpredictable. And Storj knows they would get an avalanche of complaints if they break their words. I do expect more of an exodus should that happen. I think weāll be good for a while, but maybe Iām too trustingā¦
1 Like
No, the data was removed from the satellites long before they shut down and garbage collection ran many times in between. Most nodes will hold only a tiny fraction or nothing at all for those satellites. You should only really have to take action if something went wrong with GC on your end or if you want to clean up the minimal fraction of data left.
3 Likes
Everything is happening in parallel, by different teams. So commercial network is completely unrelated to the price change for the public network.
You may imagine this relation, but the true that itās really unrelated. These are completely different teams.
The reducing payout has an own schedule, see the initial thread:
The commercial network has own:
2 Likes
It would have been trivial for them to say āwe wonāt make changes for the next 12 monthsā. They chose to use the usual corporate speak which, as I alluded to in my previous post, is essentially meaningless.
I completely understand why (corporations would use corporate speak, after all) but my point is just that statement has no power or credibility.
And as for how they did things beforeā¦ āpast performance is no guarantee of future resultsā 
As of today, my nodes store 75TB, and thereās the same amount of free space available. Is this considered a large storage node? Iāve heard for years that the team has spoken with major SNOs and made some decisions. However, Iāve never participated in such conferences and have never received an invitation from Storj.
I have 290TB of data, and also havent heard about it.
3 Likes
I wasnāt part of the discussions so I donāt know the criteria they used to determine large node operators.
1 Like
Then why did you write this if, in fact, you donāt have information about it?
I know the White House sent an aircraft carrier to the Middle East. It doesnāt mean I was on the phone with the President.
12 Likes
Comment of the week! 
Not really, @d4rk4 is pointing something crucial about nature of publishing informations hereā¦
āStorj reached out to large nodesā ā¦, some nodes, somewhere, sometime, no information about the details, but You have to be satisfied with that, and best if not ask followups, or you will be disposed of with some funny analogy.
2 Likes