so lets change it for Storj RePublic.
Lets write a Constitution and lets have some SNO representation in the storj government LoL.
No, seriously.
You cannot have a prosperous Network without a Prosperous SNOs.
Which means, earning only to offload the costs, is not sufficient for a SNO to maintain the service, therefore the experienced SNOs in general, shrink. For example i had 15 nodes, and as HDDs dies, i didn’t have money to repalce them, so few nodes fell off and never come back. Well i had money to buy like 12 HDDs at first, thanks to the 2019-2020’s Storj 5x Surge, that i later cashed out in 2022 near ATH and upgraded my nodes. But now, all i’m getting is just little above the electricity bills, soo if some HDD die, i won’t be able to replace it.
Therefore i welcomed revelations coming from this 2024 year breakthroughs that STORJ Network now, can adjust the amount of pieces to different use cases (so “file/80 pieces” no longer written in stone)
And that opens the doors for more adjust of profit sharing between Storj inc. and SNOs.
as of now, it was 1,5$ for the SNOs for every 4$ (or 5$) income per TB/month storage service. So it is 62,5% to 37,5% for SNOs. (or 70% to 30% when 5$)
But Storj inc. actually pays all that 4$ to SNOs, due to Reed-Solomon ratio to provide durability. Yet, a single SNO gets only like 30 to 37% out of it!
For a starter some Quotes, but please listen further,
i promise it only makes sense as a whole:
Quote 1 :
Quote 2 :
Quote 3:
Quote 4:
(i noticed that new choiceofn system is leveling my nodes data filling proportionally with the whole storj network capacity. Means non of my nodes can gain significant advantage in % of its HDD filled above the % of how the whole network is filled. (now, when i read again the “updates-on-test-data” posts i realized, why my nodes keep getting ~0,5TB ingress a month, but they stay rather in place at example: 5.33TB free out of 9TB, despite 0,5TB ingress month after month over past few months))
Also, a littleskunk said:
“As long as we keep the repair costs low and have enough throughput for the upload peak yes. The expansion factor isn’t really a consideration right now. Decreasing the storage expansion factor by 0.1 also means 10% more throughput with the same set of nodes. So that was the reason we optimized in that direction. We figured out it was benefitial to hit our throughput goal.” - so the less RS ratio, the better for the profits from traffic customers, as they would more like it, the faster service.
(And the SNO will be able to strengthen the nodes,
and the new SNOs in demand areas will have much better incentive.
(the topic in announcements looking for SNOs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America))
And, how about the repair traffic, it occurs when SNOs are leaving (abruptly).
(Why a node is leaving?)
What if nodes would not want to leave? - What it would have to look like, for them to NOT wanting to leave?
i would say node leave, when its no longer beneficial (not only financial)
(Change of private plans, moving out, etc.)
But i still think main part is financial.
Like, i blind guess: minimum 70% of the cases of GeExit or just Exit abruptly, is finance.
Taking that for a variable, what if, increasing payout from 1,5$/TB/mo to 2,5$/TB/mo
slashes repair traffic 2 or 3 times or more? Would that be per profit for the project?
Such exchange?
because in order to do so, Reed Solomon ratio needs to spread less than 80 parts of 1 file.
How about 2 ratio. 58 files out of which just 29 completes the file.
Isn’t 2 ratio enough?
Because right now the SNOs are paying for that extra safety with theirs pockets - is it justified? Do we really need ~2,75 ratio? That costs SNOs a less payout. And is the major reason to leave the network and THAT causes repair traffic (and i read that it can be very expensive).
Right now customer pays 4$ for 1TB. Reed Solomon at current rate is eating it all!
Its all payed to SNOs, yet a SNO is getting only 1,5$ out of it!
(coz 1TB for 4$ is suddenly 2,75TB in the Storj network. Which costs Storj inc. that 2,75 times 1,5$ = 4,125$. Theoretically. Because not 80 pieces are always there. Recently some say its 65 in production. Then it would be ~2,24 ratio, and times 1,5$ = 3,36$.
So wow, a whooping 0,64$ per TB storage for Storj Inc. is that how Storj Inc. will earn? 16% (or 32% when its 5$ for some customers) out of every TB/moth stored?
Along with a 7$ minus 2$ for SNO, for every TB uploaded from the nodes, so 5$ out of every TB/moth egress?
5$ and 0,64$
Is it worth squeezing SNOs on its main source of payout, which is 1,5$/TB for storing?
Can You make it to 2,5$ temporary, WHILE there is almost none income from Egress?
(instead of making fake traffic like in the past, because that costs)
I assume there would be time when egress will occur, but now it’s next to nothing in payout.
I’m getting around 100$ from all my nodes a month,
I just wonder if funds going for whats really needed, or they are in fact wasted.
Instead it could power up SNOs to raise our capability to maintain the service.
As i mentioned i will not have money to get new HDDs if those i got dies.
My node’s monthly cost looks like that:
21$ for ISP
~50$ for electricity
(my time for improvements and research not included (someone just send me an PM that my efforts here helped some DataCenter to improve some Windows Servers an x times, glad it was useful))
with “~” because it was around 44$, but its rising month to month, to 50$, to 53$, and now to 70$, for the same use. It really looks like less and less room to breathe.
If the payout is at ~100$
of course i use ISP for private use,
of course i use the Storj machines for some private use,
but i would like to save some money aside for storj’s HDDs and RAM, or whatever repairs to come.
If i would be getting 2,5$ instead of 1,5$/TB i would be getting around 167$ instead of 100$/mo
Now a disks i buy are around 221$ per 16TB, 2nd hand (1-2years, almost new, 550TB/year, 2,5M hours MTBF disks). i will be able to buy one every 3 months!
Or i will buy 1-2 and just be gathering the money for node fund to decide later, modernization and repairs.
As You can see its not about the accounting from which table: storage or egress i get it, but the total monthly amount, so i would be able to save money for future of my nodes.
I already had to replace the power supply that died, and RAM for more, to improve the nodes.
i know You are bound to 4$ from customers,
2,5$ would need RS ratio to be 1,6,
i don’t know if 29 parts times 1,6 would be enough durability
But if now effectively it is at 2,25, and nothing happens (65 parts),
so maybe 1,9 could be as well? (55 parts)
It would fit under 4$ from customer (just like with 2,75 and 80 parts).
The difference would be now the
2,15$ per TB, would make me 144$, and its still ~60$ that i would be able to save,
so 1 disk every 3,6 mo is also sustainable.
compared to now, at 10$, for 1 disk every 2 years…
And that brings me to OP’s 2nd question: the nodes are never “completely setup.”
I mean, if they were, there’s no point to spend time on them, but there’s always something to improve OR repair. That’s why the funds are needed for.
Do You want me to go extinct?
Can i request some managmen consideration about what i wrote?
Please treat it as an open letter from dearly Yours, who wants to stay Yours!
Best Wishes.