Double payouts are not enough!

The double payouts in December are not enough to compensate for the unsent order issue I got in the month of September and October. Will SNOs get a compensation for this unsent order issue?

1 Like

Please calculate the difference for us and post it in numbers here. What are you effectively missing in September and October and what are you about to get for November?


September payout
Total on python script: 12.75 usd
Total on web dashboard: 9.54 usd
Not paid: 3.21 usd

October payout
Total on python script: 9.44 usd
Total on web dashboard: 3.43 usd
Not paid: 6.01 usd

November payout
Total on python script: 6.72 usd
Total on web dashboard: 6.04 usd
Not paid: 0.68 usd

Double payout total in November: 12.08 usd

Unsent order issue total loss: 3.86 usd

I only used the Gross Total amount in the calculation, the Held Back amount and the NET TOTAL amount was not used!

I lost ~20$, but thats ok if december go back to the normal income. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Show me the proof! The double payout was not enough to cover the loss?

i think we have established long ago that the double payout was to equalize the decrease in egress over the last month, which was about 50% of the normal… which was why they decided to double it.

the orders.db issue was never to my knowledge compensated, and it would also be quite difficult to do, since the orders.db issue in some cases affected people for like a month or more, while others noticed it right away…

thus most would have different damages from it.
so yeah double payout wouldn’t cover it… ever it would just raise the payout of november back up to being equal to what it has been the last 3-6 months
my node isn’t old enough to give me reliable numbers further back than 4-5 but it’s been pretty steady in income and November was at 30$ which then was doubled to 60 which was what i’ve seen for quite a few months.

so yeah i highly doubt double payout was aimed at fixing your loss.

there’s a lot of speculation in here, do you have any public announcement about that? Was the double
payout really just to up the earnings because egress got lower?

Well I do have a public announcement and it says differently:

STORJlabs wants to thank us for keeping up the good “work” despite all the bugs and kinks during development. Lower egress can hardly be called a “kink”.


i’m sure the orders.db issue didn’t hurt their decision to go that route… but the orders issue is basically impossible to define in a simple manner, so the easiest solution is just to disregard that an reward in general, so most feel good towards it…

it’s the simplest most logical choice, i don’t need an announcement to see that.

with the orders db issue, some where affected for literally months and others for a couple of days i believe… how would you compensate for that and why if it wasn’t even your fault…
sure you can shove it in under a broad blanket statement, in regard to the double payout…

but if people want to do the math on it, then it will never add up as being compensated for the orders.db issue… paying out compensation for that is an impossible task and / or takes to long to be worth doing.

1 Like

well if you don’t check your node for months… not only storjlabs fault I’d say.


There is a difference when the only few operators are affected because of order corruption due to not ideal setup and noticeable affecting with a bug introduced.

It’s easy to blame someone else for your node screwing up, If there was a true issue in the storagenode software there would be alot of people complaining about it. When I say alot I would say 90% of the storagenode operators would have some complaint that there not getting paid because of the order corruption bug. But it seems this is based on the setup of the user and how they run there nodes. Storj has been pretty good about paying people an amount showing there appreciation of the node operators there hasn’t been a month where I expected to become rich off this.

This topic has become pointless to keep going with it, If you weren’t making any money then sure but you are being paid an amount its just not the amount you want.


getting tiresome to listen to people complaining when they really should be grateful they got any compensation at all…

complaining that one is short 2$ … really, are we there… … nit picking is what it is, and it’s a disgrace.
this is the true beginning of the project… basically, if one doesn’t expect problems, then maybe one is in the wrong place.

1 Like

depends… if it is completely storjlabs fault then they should compensate, which they do (remember the payment because the exchange rate was wrong?).
But you cant expect storjlabs to pay for something that is not entirely storjlabs fault like files corrupting (and not because of a programming error) and that can’t even be proven that it wasn’t due to user/hardware error.
They still gave everyone double payout which is awesome. So that’s done for me :slight_smile:


$2 is a lot to some people

I don’t know how it works with the cost of the internet connection but there it is.


Well, my internet connection costs ~11$ per month, so that’s like 18,2% of it. I wouldn’t call 18% nit picking.

Did you get the connection only for storj? otherwise you’d have to only partially count it…

1 Like

No no, just one connection at this point. It is even more important this way (as you say), that, at least, i could cover fraction of this cost which I would pay for anyway otherwise, if we futher debate if 2$ have some meaning.
I just wanted to share my pov that sometimes even small numbers have meaning. In my case my income from storj is pretty good, around 40-50$ per month.

you’re right. depending on the value of your local currency $2 can be a lot. It always depends on what you compare it to.

The 2 dollars might cover the fee to exchange it thats about it.

1 Like