Right now - we are - Storj. Including Valdi and PetaGene (cunoFS).
You mean Stor-Jay, Vald-Eye, and PetaGen-Eee? 
6 Likes
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.
1 Like
You’ve provided quite a few links: so plenty to think about: thank you!
Even given the current payout rates, we’re near all-time highs for active nodes and surplus space. There’s no indication SNOs needs higher payouts, nor that it would be a problem if some SNOs left. There’s already stiff competition at the $4/TB/m price point for S3-compatible object storage: so although Storj has uplifts like SOC2/Select… that’s really just adding value at the current price (compared to competition)… it’s not allowing them to charge more.
Over 25000 nodes are being kept online at current payouts. I hope they stay at these rates for a long time… but I can understand if eventually they choose to lower them. There seems to be zero business reason to raise them.
1 Like
Like Bitcoin mining, people will grow the network so long as they can earn more than they lose. Even if it is just a few cents. The more we pay the more nodes are added until the earnings are diluted to those who can earn at the minimum. So, unless it is quick surge payments before new nodes can ramp up long term higher payouts would just earn you the same amount, we would just have more capacity.
3 Likes
This is off-topic: but now that the TTL system is solid, and uploads can prefer faster nodes… I hope Storj never pays blanket bonuses again. If they do want an incentive/reward payment it should be done with a block of TTL test data. May the fastest nodes win! 
Edit: We’re at a scale now that hopefully we don’t need to be financially nudged to do anything anymore… but you never know…
We really don’t know what is running for the Select network. And do I remember correctly that they pay more to the node operators on the Select network?
The biggest problem is that there are not enough customers.
October 2023:
Today:
While the available space including Select now has doubled, stored customer data is basically not growing. And if it is growing it seems growth is happening on the Select network.
So if there was some initial hope that increased usage will somehow compensate for the reduced rates does not work well it seems.
Just my 2 cents but In my opinion if the storage network lost any amount of data it’s reputation would be ruined, So I prefer higher data integrity over a higher payout.
1 Like
You remember incorrectly - they earn less per TB due to a bulk offering. However, they have some benefits for sure - guaranteed usage and absence of a /24 filter (but they have much more others, we still want to be decentralized as much as possible, just rules are much more complicated - e.g. not use nodes of the same provider for all segments of the file, etc.). So, we are balancing the attractiveness there too.
1 Like
The Select Node operators get paid less, but I believe it costs Storj more to use Select than it does with Storj Deluxe (My intentionally humerous made up name for the standard Storj model). So that may be where some of the confusion lies. Storj pays Select node operators less, but assumes more labor to configure and manage the data in Select. It is better for the company, financially, to use Storj Deluxe. That is my understanding of it anyway.
2 Likes
It can very well be that I confused this
I believe I have read somewhere on here that the space they offer is reserved, so they get paid no matter if Storj makes use of it.
And I read:
So maybe that is where my confusion is coming from.
That’s sometimes true too, highly depends on a provider and the contract.
In general for Storj the Storj Global is always a preferred way to offer a storage, unless there are selected conditions, which would lead them to the Storj Select instead.
2 Likes
7 nodes currently… 1 /24 IP… don’t spend any time on it unless my ISP decides to change my public IP… or when there are new configurations that i didn’t keep up to date on… like the zksync lite being obsolete… i only found out two weeks back haha
got 2 or 3 more spare hdd sitting about… just need to get the CPU that it is on capable of booting first 
3 Likes
I’m Sorry Raxor, but i have to reply, because all that not what i wrote.
i mean… but does it also means no need to improve?
no indication doesn’t mean You shouldn’t strive for perfection, right? (optimization)
Optimization is the point.
Customers uploads 1 TB and it turns out to be 2,24 TB right now (if 65 parts are keept)
If we can change that to 55 parts, it means, customer pays less, and SNOs can get more.
(No charging more than 4$ for storage/TB/mo, its within the 4$ frame.)
Also is it no indication, because number of nodes stays still over months at ~25k?
or it is indication, because if whole market moves forward? and You don’t move, its like going backwards.
(im sure Storj Select with certificates is surpassing the market growth for sure, we are talking about Public Network)
Yea but, customers pays more, and SNO’s gets less, its what its all about.
Also more data could be placed in same node’s space.
i mean its not for me to determinate is it possible,
but we started from 80 parts, and now its reportedly 65 for some time.
And noting happens, i’m just bringing it up, maybe 55 parts would do as well.
As a default basics.
if customers want more durability sure they could be able to set it for xyz number of parts above that and pay for it.
Obviously, SNOs are not a focus point right now due to available free space which is not in a shortage ATM, but i think about SNOs future, and SNOs problems, and perspectives because i am one. Sno. i’m a SNO. Not a problem. …well, maybe a problem to the crew (Whats up guys! @Alexey @Bryanm @littleskunk hope You do well ! i want to buy new replace parts, can You help? …)
No one will bring it for us, if we do not come forward ourselves, fellow SNOs.
I’m all for higher payouts, but I don’t believe it’s right for us to talk about the durability of the network. If Storj could lower it further, I’m sure they would have already done so.
I’m not sure if you’ve considered this, but the fewer pieces there are per chunk of data, the lower the upload speeds will be for that individual chunk. This impacts the public network even more because a significant number of nodes operate on non-symmetrical internet connections. During testing, it actually maxed out my upload speed for quite a while—150 Mbps up and 1500 Mbps down. I’ve since switched to fiber. Given that one of Storj’s key marketing points is its consistent read latency across different regions, reducing the number of pieces could negatively impact performance.
As for allowing customers to control the piece count, I would never let them lower it—only raise it, primarily to increase read speed. An added benefit would be improved data integrity, but if I were concerned about my data, I wouldn’t rely on a single provider.
3 Likes
Actually we have a possibility to use different RS numbers even per project and hopefully per bucket too, so it’s very flexible.
Also I still believe, that we would implement a dynamic RS settings sometime in the future (to keep the high distribution for the high demand like broadcasting or software distribution). Of course, it likely would cost a premium, but it would be up on the customer to decide.
5 Likes
What about StorJ wide and StorJ select?
It accurately sets the tone for each of the two networks.
Select is just that. A subsection of nodes, made to offer select advantages.
Wide is also just that. It’s the most broad selection of nodes, offering the best and most consistent performance, without the dirty-bus-stigma of the word “public”
1 Like
I’m prefer to call a public Storj network as a Global Storj to distinguish from Storj Select, because the main difference - geofencing. There is also can be sub-Select with SOC2 Type II (or analogues for AP and for EU) specifically, but well.
What about:
- Storj Performance (Global)
and - Storj Certified (Select)?
2 Likes
Or like on airplanes:
- StorJ economy
- StorJ Premium (or Business)