Hi all, I just notice it this morning
I’m not asking about price, just want to know what you guys thinking about future of storj
Is there already any feedback from storj team related to this ?
Source from binance
https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/detail/ca0f3a3ff83243b79102b4561c8ccdc2?utm_source=new_share&ref=CPA_00L8N20IAC
Mod feel free to move or edit my post, quite longtime I’m not posting
Your URL but without tracking: https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/detail/ca0f3a3ff83243b79102b4561c8ccdc2
This is not news. Token is very volatile. We know that. Everyone knows that. Literally nothing changed. We already had the whole discussion about token multiple times. Here is the last one. Token price swing after payout
What we think is irrelevant. What storj thinks they cannot share. What else do you want to know?
Binance will conduct periodic project reviews and decide if the Monitoring Tag should be added to or removed from tokens as per its latest findings. These criteria are considered during the review:
Asking since based on the post, I think we should have public feedback from the team
If even that we don’t have then ok, nothing to do here
Right. But why should storj or we care about what binance thinks?
Storj keep using the token. When it becomes more difficult to use than to implement other payment methods — they will switch to those. What happens with token and success of Storj as a company are not correlated.
I don’t think this is correct, storj token is part of product/company (right or wrong decision that they make I don’t know)
But how storj deal/make public announcement relate to this show how the company react or commit with their product ?
If they don’t even care about it then like I said nothing to talk here anymore :))
What’s even more important:
https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/detail/ca0f3a3ff83243b79102b4561c8ccdc2
Tokens with the Monitoring Tag exhibit notably higher volatility and risks compared to other listed tokens. These tokens are closely monitored, with regular reviews conducted. Keep in mind that tokens with the Monitoring Tag are at risk of no longer meeting our listing criteria and being delisted from the platform.
As Storj communication has completely ceased since the acquisition, no reaction is to be expected.
As Storj communication has completely ceased since the acquisition, no reaction is to be expected.
thanks, missed this, sound like 
to me
It is weekend, wait and see next week
The link still gives me a 404.
This 
. Until the token is difficult-to-use enough that SNOs and network-capacity start to drop… what CEX supports STORJ isn’t an issue. There are many places to buy/sell.
And we absolutely could change payouts again (we already moved from SJCX). Been there, done that 
Well on https://storjtoken.com/ they claim:
STORJ token is a foundational asset for the digital economy.
It its pretty much of a useless asset if it cannot be exchanged anywhere if other exchanges may follow Binances route and eventually delist it.
Timing could not be worse… While it would be inevitable because SNOs must be paid somehow, such move after delisting announcements would probably accelerate the death of the token.
It also [used to] say “STORJ token powers distributed cloud storage and AI scalability”, the kind of sentence that makes less sense the more you read it.
It’s all exercise in creative writing. On a separate domain, which is smart. Good step in divorcing from it.
Token dying from natural causes would be the cleanest exit possible.
I think a lot of people are treating this acquisition as if Storj just lost its main customer, when in reality a much larger company decided to acquire the technology, infrastructure, and customer base.
If Inveniam wanted to compete with Storj, it could have continued competing. Buying an entire company usually means you see value in what already exists.
I don’t have a crystal ball regarding the token, but I also don’t see any reason to assume that an acquisition automatically means “project dead.” There are still customers storing data, node operators providing capacity, and a distributed infrastructure that is actually being used. That’s a lot more tangible than many crypto projects whose only asset is a whitepaper and a promise.
Personally, I’m more interested in what happens over the next 6-12 months than in the initial panic. Announcements are one thing. Customer retention, network usage, storage demand, and operator incentives are what will ultimately determine the outcome.
For now, I’ll keep doing what I’ve always done: watch the data. If customers leave, storage shrinks, and node payouts collapse, I’ll change my opinion. If usage remains strong and the network keeps growing, then the market may eventually notice that there is real infrastructure behind the token.
How ironic indeed!
Storj is not, and was never a crypto project. Parading the token for “market to discover” that there is an actual value behind it is very dumb.
To be clear, storj is a disrtibuted storage company. Not “crypto” company whatever the hell that means. They are also very smart. They saw an opportunity to get fools to pay to bootstrap the company. With crypto it was/is same .com boom again – if you mention crypto, people hand you money without looking. It was an ingenious move, raising money from fools pockets.
Now company has been boot strap and token is a distraction, as you have noted yourself, obscuring the actual value and dragging it down as “another crypto project”. Most serious businesses don’t want to deal with crypto. Note, how the token has its own web site now? And there is no mention of token anywhere on the front page of storj.io? I wonder why? Maybe storj wants serious customer and not speculative crypto bros?
They cannot kill the token. They cannot express agreement with what I write. They cannot impact market in any way shape or form. So you won’t hear anythign from Storj about it. But read between the lines.
On your other points:
This makes no sense.
This is a very broad and incomplete claim. it could also mean patent acquisition and competition elimination. Why continue to compete when you can buy out the competitor. (no, this is not what happened here, I know, but your statement is one-sided)
You don’t need a crystal ball to reason.
This in no way connected to the beginning of the statement. Project != token. And yes, you keep entangling the two, even in the thread about this very topic.
What if customers leave, storage grows, node payouts collapse? What if customers join, storage shrinks, payouts raise? Any other combination? What will you do in each case? Nothing? Then why bother watching?
Agreed. Storj is a S3-compatible object storage provider: one of many in the market. A regular company. The fact that a token is involved on the backend isn’t the important part.
Did we receive payouts this month? If yes: nodes run another month. That’s as complicated as it needs to be… no matter who is running the show.
I actually agree with part of what you’re saying.
Storj the company and STORJ the token are not the same thing, and I probably blended the two more than I should have in my previous comment.
My point is not that “company success automatically means token moon.” Reality is obviously more complicated than that.
What I find interesting is that there is still real infrastructure, real storage demand, real customers, and real node operators behind the system. That already places it in a very different category from purely speculative crypto projects with no operational layer underneath.
Whether the token ultimately captures any meaningful part of that value is a separate question entirely, and honestly one I don’t think anybody can answer with certainty right now.
As for the acquisition itself, I don’t see it as inherently bullish or bearish. I see it as a signal that the underlying technology and network had enough value for a larger player to acquire it instead of rebuilding everything from scratch.
I can. Anyone can. The answer is no, not from company value. Why? Because STORJ is not equity. It is not a fractional share in Storj. It does not represent a claim on revenue, profit, assets, acquisition proceeds, or future distributions. If the company becomes more valuable, token holders do not own any of that value.
The only way the token captures value is if the business creates sustained token demand through actual required usage. That is a separate mechanism, and so far the company seems to be moving away from making the token central to the customer-facing business, see my comment above.
Yes, it’s also not a railroad nor a bakery. There is no value in discussing what it is not. Storj has nothing to do with crypto except as a company bootstrap fundraising. The fact that many people, including on this forum, seem to keep repeatedly discussing crypto is the very problem the token keeps creating.
I don’ think this conclusion is supported. It may be the reason, it may not. We don’t know why it was acquired. There could be many reasons that have nothing to do with future growth or technical merit.
I would say, that token is still used by the customers deliberatively and by Storage Node Operators (here is no choice). Tokens also used to pay other service providers/contractors as well.
So, it’s still used, despite what are you claiming.
“used” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Storj pays customers to use it (via 10% account bonus), so that is not exactly organic demand.
Operators use it because, as you said, there is no choice.
I don’t claim that it’s not used. I claimed a very specific different thing.
You constantly forget about the minimum monthly payment being waived for clients paying with STORJ tokens if the 10% bonus isn’t enough.
There are many clients who pay exclusively with STORJ tokens, as well as those who pay with STORJ tokens and have a linked card (it will be used after tokens if the balance is insufficient).
Therefore, I believe the demand for such tokens from clients is quite natural.
This reinforces my point. The 10% account bonus and waived minimum billing are incentives created by Storj to make customers use the token.
Nobody wants it unless they are paid to deal with it (or punished for not using it. That is what that bogus $5 fee accomplishes, it’s only job is to make paying with token attractive)
This is as far from “natural demand” as possible.
Customers are paid to use it. Operators are not.