I believe they charged depending on sum usually, however, there are providers which are not, but in exchange that it’s a fixed amount “up to 3 contractors”, etc.
Some have calculators, so you may try to figure out.
Really depends. An automated payment solution might reduce manual work significantly too. Also if choice for SNOs would matter, only crypto is not enough.
@Alexey
I only can suggest to check out the information that the providers publish instead of guessing. It really helps to understand: https://trolley.com/product-release-2025-raising-the-bar/#payout-ops
There is no requirement to do so, and also there are also always nuances.
I believe, if the requirement would arise there will be a research how to meet it.
But if you want to do this research - I would share it with the team as well.
It’s always 2 SNO who starting the theme of changing the payment method. Their position does not gain even 5 reactions in order to be relevant for 30k nodes.
2 Likes
These ideas are judged by merit, and not decided by popular vote. Popular vote never leads to good outcomes. Vast majority of people are not experts in the vast majority of areas. I think this is obvious.
“People are very good at adapting to bad design, but that doesn’t mean they prefer it”. D. Norman.
1 Like
That’s why you think that your opinion is the most professional answer on all the questions? 
No. You replaced the argument with a logical fallacy. Others being wrong doesn’t elevate me; correctness does. Attack my argument, not character.
2 Likes
Maybe try creating Storj memes and make them go viral, “Storj the sad cloud” instead of “Pepe the sad frog.” That kind of thing might actually help drive attention and value.
You’re comparing meme culture with a utility token. Meme tokens, in my view, are more of a symptom of late-stage capitalism: people buy anything just for the hype, regardless of whether it has real value or use. Just look at Stanley Cups, Labubus, Dubai chocolate, all hype products with little to no intrinsic worth.
1 Like
Ever tried to get a coin on a big exchange ?
Then you have to pay 150.000 usd
So that the storj coin is on big exchanges is a very good thing.
many other coins who are trying that also will not reach that goal ever.
And the idea from some people to use the storj coin less is a very bad idea.
If volumes are getting less the coin can be delisted and that’s not what we want at all.
2 Likes
Funny you should said that. No crypto currency has intrinsic value. None. Labubus and retched Stanley cups — do.
This is cargo-cult thinking. Storj works because storage is bought and sold. The token is a settlement detail. Not a product. Trying to “use it more” to satisfy exchanges is backward and irrelevant to the actual system.
Who’s “we”? I for one want it to get wiped from the surface of the earth as soon as possible, so “we” can switch to using actual money.
1 Like
You want to get rid off a 60 mlj marketcap coin, because you have to pay some cents conversion rate, how crazy is that ? 
1 Like
Market cap means nothing here. It’s a number produced by speculation, not by the system.
This isn’t about “a few cents.” The token carries conversion, custody, accounting, and regulatory overhead into a workflow that doesn’t need it.
Storage works without a token. The token is friction. Removing it simplifies the system.
2 Likes
everything works without fiat money also.
but there have to be some payment or trade.
With so many countries with a different valuta, Storj coin is perfect one in this situation.
I know you will disagree, but for me this is the end of discussion.
1 Like
I think you’re absolutely right.
The project is compelling, but using the token as a payment mechanism feels counterproductive — and probably not the best way to attract SNOs (especially since ingress is already capped per IP).
As for what to do with payouts: without fully automating sales, I’m tweaking a small alert tool that pings me when price moves create interesting swap opportunities. Is it worth it financially? Not really. But it adds a bit of adrenaline when the market spikes and you’re hoping slippage doesn’t eat the whole thing. And when it works, you end up proud of a +7% on a few hundred STORJ… Gordon Gekko in H&M cruising in a Corolla. In the end, everyone’s free to do whatever they want with their earnings.
Storj is also a cheap way to learn crypto trading. I joined out of curiosity; I’m staying partly for the fun, and to see what’s next. People are predicting a pretty eventful 2026 for tech/crypto — we’ll see.
Either way, everyone seems pretty fired up this early in the year.
Did you read the thread before coming in blasting? If cross-border payments were actually the problem, as Storj wants people to believe, they could use a stablecoin. That already exists. There is no need to invent yet another silly token.
Then you should have come with facts, not emotions and marketing drivel.
This has no bearing on the validity of the argument.
The token served a purpose early on as a capital-raising and bootstrapping mechanism. I won’t comment on the ethics of this. It’s irrelevant. That phase is over. Today the token doesn’t “enable” storage (inspire of what marketing sounds like), not needed for payouts or growth. It persists because it can’t be dropped cleanly without political and contractual fallout, not because the system needs it.
On the other hand, there is surplus of SNOs. Attracting new ones is not a problem that needs solving.
That’s trading. Speculation. Entertainment. It has nothing nor should ever have anything to do with storage infrastructure.
Nodes are supposed to provide capacity and reliability, which then customers buy. None of that benefits from volatility, timing swaps, or hoping slippage doesn’t eat the trade. I’ts a different activity entirely. There is no reason ever to even think about mixing the two.
That’s not a feature. It’s overhead. Infrastructure should minimize required expertise, not require operators to learn exchanges, custody, swaps, tax handling, and market timing.
If someone wants to trade for fun, fine. Keep that separate. Storage should be boring.
Some of us are simply tired of bullshit.
4 Likes
The token was introduced back in 2014, and stablecoins didn’t exist back then. So please don’t use that as an argument.
The STORJ token still solves the cross-border payments in a more cheap ways than any fiat solutions so far. I don’t think that switching to stablecoins will ever happen. A migration from Counterparty SJCX tokens on Bitcoin to ERC20 STORJ tokens on Ethereum was very painful and still some comes back to ask for conversion from SJCX to STORJ, while the convertor was shutdown many years ago. Switching to stablecoins (or any other token) will have the same pain, costly and requires too much efforts, also likely will require to re-do all compliance work, so unlikely.
What “switch” is required to send out e.g. USDC ERC20 token instead of STORJ and why is it painful?
My understanding is: Company will run out of STORJ reserves and needs to buy STORJ on the free market. So whether the company buys STORJ or USDC where is the difference? It is even beneficial for the company as they will not risk falling prices between buying and sending the STORJ.
But even still company could buy STORJ if they must and only convert to USDC before sending out the payments.
USDC and STORJ both ERC20. Where is the pain, why is it costly and what efforts are required compared to getting the benefits of not losing money on volatility?
2 Likes
Any change of the token requires a significant efforts from different teams, starting from the legal department first, also developers work and many other. None of this is free.
I do not think that it may happen again.
Frictions of converting to a foreign token (which is not fact that it’s allowed), also handling the native token? You cannot be serious.
There could be only fully switch, otherwise it will be twice as expensive.
And for what? To solve the non-existing problem?
1 Like
Yes, converting is totally absurd. It seems you are agreeing. But this is what SNOs have to deal with again and again. It should be abandoned. But for some reason Storj seems to have to stick to the STORJ token, that’s why I added the conversion in my comment. Because it could happen that Storj receives STORJ from customers if they don’t do the switch to USDC for customers too. So if they receive STORJ and send out USDC to SNOs, they would have to convert them. But let’s put that aside as an edge case as there are probably not too many customers paying high amounts with STORJ token.
So my case is: Storj buys $100.000 in STORJ and sends them out to SNOs vs. Storj buys $100.000 in USDC and sends them out to SNOs.
Where is the pain, the cost and why do you believe this could not be allowed? I am not aware of any kind of law or regulation that shall forbid that.
1 Like