Then it is not far-fetched to anticipate that regulators will eventually establish binding guidelines for all exchanges regarding these matters. For instance, there could be thresholds such as $25,000 for transactions originating from a self-owned wallet and $1,000 for those coming from a third-party wallet.
It’s important to note that these limits are not necessarily daily allowances; they could easily represent total limits. Therefore, if you receive $50 from Storj each month, you would remain under the threshold for 20 months but then you would require proof. So don’t get a false sense of being excluded from that rule.
I doubt that there ever will be a fixed amount you can transfer from a certain source, like non-custodial wallet. Throwing obstacles - yes, but blocking such deposit completely - I don’t think so. What if you send such a transfer and at the moment of arrival is worth $25,001? Is it suspended? What happens to money then? Such regulation would do more harm than good.
Anyway, people are operating with billions in crypto. 25k may be something familiar to your perspective, but not necessarily to more affluent people. Acts of Parliament and other regulations, in all countries, must try to cater to all situations.
This is not so much about if you can receive a specific amount, it is about whether there are specified thresholds at which some kind of proof must be obtained. So nothing prevents you from receiving millions in crypto if you can provide the legally required documentation that the funds are legitimate and coming from an address you own and if they are within the limits that each provider can set obviously.
There are guidelines from the EBA that tell the provider what actions are required. If there is a specific threshold and the provider is required to obtain a proof of funds or proof of ownership then they will do so. This is what compliance means. If they don’t receive the required documents, they will not release the funds to their client resp. reject or return them to the sender.
The Travel Rule that requires identification of ownership clearly states an amount of €1.000. So yes, of course lawmakers can set any amount they deem appropriate in such a bill as binding for the providers that fall under the bill.
One of the next things that goes into effect 2027 is a €10.000 limit for cash transactions EU-wide.
It seems they are not:
Can I receive deposits from third parties?
No, we do not support receiving crypto deposits from anyone other than yourself. If deposits are made by third parties, Bitvavo is legally required to send funds back to the originating address.
Note: A third party is considered a sender whose wallet is not owned by the person receiving the deposit.
@Alexey
Given the fact that we see major EU exchanges now explicitly forbid receiving crypto from wallets that are not owned by the customer, maybe this should be mentioned in the docs.
Exchange addresses could become a real issue for receiving Storj payouts in the future if exchanges start to request proof of ownership for the sending address and don’t release the funds unless provided which obviously the SNO can’t.
While this has the potential to not only affect Storj payouts but all deposits from 3rd parties it makes receiving cryptocurrency as Storj payout even more complicated. It means you need ETH to move it to an exchange. Unless you have already ETH you need to obtain it first. And there is 2x transaction fees. None of that would be required if Storj would pay to a bank account. The payment process, meant to be straightforward and easy, is getting more and more complicated to an extent that makes it absurd.
It always was. We never recommended to use the exchange address as a wallet for storagenode. We cannot guarantee, that you would receive your payout, if you would ignore our advices.
You may opt-in for zkSync Era and use the txsync bridge. They allowed to pay a fee with STORJ tokens. However, need to check first, does they allow to specify a different wallet address on L1.
Or use any other bridges, but they would require to have ETH (or some other tokens too). But if they allow to specify a different L1 address for withdrawal, then you may specify the exchange address for withdrawal from L2 to receive STORJ via L1 on your exchange. Fees on L2 in several times lower than on L1 and the source wallet will be yours.
I don’t think, that the bank transfers to SNO will be ever implemented, so you may do not mention that in each thread.
You just not understand how these multisend providers works. Their fees are pretty high for the sender. We want to reduce costs, not increase.
No need to argue with me on that, it unlikely change anything.
I think this is a new reason now. Until now the reason was not to use an exchange address because the SNO does not own the exchange wallet address.
Now the recommendation would be not to use the exchange address because 1. SNO will not be able to prove ownership of the Storj sending address and 2. because exchange might prohibit receiving deposits from 3rd parties at all.
Also it would be assuring to know how Storj will handle rejected or returned SNO funds.
So it could be that it is not possible to withdraw from zkSync to the exchanges address directly? This would mean you would still have to do a L1 to L1 transfer to the exchange?
So ideally I would be able to receive STORJ on L2 and withdraw them to the exchanges L1 address and would be able to pay all fees with STORJ token?
Then this sounds like the only solution that does not require additional ETH. And you are saying that the L2 source wallet is owned by the SNO so he could provide any form of proof of ownership that an exchange might request even though the funds go to a L1 exchange address from the L2 address? I have no idea how zkSync works that this would be possible.
Look, it is just like that pops up a new reason every why the current solutions is particularly bad.
Ok fine, I don’t understand. Then tell me how they work, how much they are and what provider you have been already talking to.
From the information that is publically available to me I can see one provider that offers less than $50 monthly for the base pay package and e.g. ACH transaction fee at $1, Paypal $0, SEPA $4, I don’t see any necessary additional hidden cost.
Another one offers SEPA transfer cost as low as $1.30. A 3rd one advertises cross-border transactions from as low as US$1.
Fine. Storj can do it without a payment provider. I keep repeating that I would happily bear the cost e.g. for an ACH bank transfer. So kindly tell me how much it is? You are correct that I do not understand what increase you are talking about when I bear the cost. But I do understand that this would mean a significant cost reduction for me compared to receiving the STORJ token. I am wondering if you do understand that?
Even if a payment provider might charge something, SNOs and Storj could experience huge savings because of automation, low fees, less handling cost, less or zero intermediaries, automatic statements and payout receipts, message on arrival and much more.
Actually the reason is not new. The only message was - they may decide to block you for literally any reason and you will lost access to your funds. This is what usually mean in crypto - not your keys - not your money.
But maybe we can extend the list “why not?”.
I think they will be lost, because likely the sending address is a smart contract. I’m not sure.
Perhaps, then you would need to use the other bridge, and have supported tokens on the L2 address. However, fees on L2 are much lower.
Yes, that’s was an idea back in time when we introduced the zkSync Lite. You can pay a fee in tokens even if it was a little bit higher than on L1 those days. Right now it’s more to reduce a transfer fee. But you need to check, that this withdrawal fee is definitely lower than on L1.
Yes, on the blockchain it should look like transferred from your wallet address. Need to check though, I cannot find a TX easily.
But the source address on L2 and on L1 will be the same.
See the famous address
I believe none, no one even considered it as an option. I just know from my own experience. There is a popular service called Deel. You can receive a payout from the company there as a contractor or employee. Then you may withdraw from there to your bank account or to their card or to the VISA card or to crypto. For the contractor a SWIFT fee is $10 (ok, well, if withdraw to a local bank account it may be lower), however, for the company it’s a subscription fee as $599 per employee/month. I do not believe that others who can make KYC and all pipework headache for you will take less. And KYC is a must have requirement and all pipework done for bank transfers between an employer and the contractor/employee. Because I believe the relation between a company and the SNO will be treated as that in EU for fiat. Maybe it would be extended to crypto too, and then there would be a less difference.
What you pay in EU doesn’t matter, StorjLabs is US company, so they cannot use SEPA, only SWIFT and see above.
Cannot. Too much pipework for every SNO: KYC, the contract and so on. For every SNO. So we would need also to extend the team. This will increase costs.
Swift is very old, slow and expensive.
Have you looked as OSKO?
I don’t mind paying fees, but every time I look at converting Storj to real currency, I’m losing %60. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. To me, that’s far to much, and has to be a better way.
I think this would be a good idea. The Travel Rule and MICAR is quite new and might be surprising if exchanges start to enforce it and block the payout. If it can’t be unblocked and get lost this would be tragic.
Deel is designed for HR teams managing EOR and contractor hiring. It is not a substitution for a specialized payment provider. And yes I agree they seem to be expensive. But this is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about providers like
We can take a look on any new system in the world, like fast direct transfers, implemented in Russia and called SBP (the system of fast transfers, so the abbreviation would be SFT) or PromptPay (Asian analogue of the same), etc., doesn’t matter, until it would be implemented in USA.
Use only your own wallet, otherwise your funds can be lost.
If people are ignorance, seems that they need to learn it via their pocket. But sure, I can add it to the list of “why not”.
Doesn’t really matter. I believe, that EU will treat you as a contractor or employee. So just “payment processor” will be not enough, like with tokens. Please prove me that’s I’m wrong. I wouldn’t even consider to dive this way in Storj’s shoes. It is also do not solve the problem for non-EU and non-US SNOs at all. Still no.
and more costs to support all of them..
The bank payments unlikely will be implemented any time soon. If you do not agree to accept payments in STORJ tokens, you have a right to leave the network, because you disagree with ToS, sorry.
I agree with you that payments in fiat would be great for SNOs, at least for a part of us, but letting aside the problems that Storj has with payment processors, I see 2 points of concern:
1.some sno preffer crypto payments for various reasons.
2.I think about this and I can’t wrap my head aroud it: how the transition would look like? How could you tell holders that soon the token they hold would be useless? And a big part of them are operators. They would rush to sell and nobody would buy. Maybe some of them just got the monthly payout.
How long would be from the announcement to the switch? 15 days? A month? 3 months? If more than a month, then you must hold the payments back, because nobody wants the token anymore. And so on… a lot of issues that would only creat chaos and a very bed rep for Storj. They already made mistakes that looked bad and made some clients leave. This would be catastrophical.
This. And it is a small piece of the iceberg. Fiat payments will destroy the token, as an idea in general. I don’t even know how regulators will react to this… well, except that we will lose everyone not EU and not US operators.
So, dear @jammerdan please, forget this Utopic idea about bank transfers to operators. This will do more harm than good to the entire ecosystem.
Please follow a guide where you should use your own wallet address and not the exchange address especially if that’s a requirement of your government.
I even do not know why we are discussing that, it’s a legal requirement, so why do you invent circumvents to bypass their requirement?
Alternative payment option would be great. Really don’t understand how a payment processor doesn’t exist in USA. We have things called BANKs that do that.
Does a customer buying Stor tokens loose a large percentage of their dollar value when they purchase Storj.?
The micropayments via bank transfers are too expensive and have different requirements in different countries. They also require too much excess paperwork for the company and it is expensive too. Right now it’s your responsibility and in many cases costs you nothing.
Please lets stop this going in circles, it’s contr-poductive.
There is no plans to implement bank transfers for SNOs. You have a right to leave the network if you disagree with ToS.
Please explain how one can transfer Storj Tokens to USD (will do as a base currency) and with little to no fees/gas/transaction fees/etc. Maybe a how-to is required for us nuffies.
Many ways to skin a cat. Storj seems to be stuck on the first try, resisting all other avenues?
As a customer, when I buy Storj for my storage account, how does that work? Straight from my VISA, or do I have to buy through an exchange??
Why should we search for other more expensive methods?
Depends on the local laws and available options. Some allow to buy with VISA, some with bank transfers, some via exchange. There are 84 countries, so no universal method.
The customer may also pay with a card, not with STORJ tokens, but they will be a subject of a minimum monthly billing in that case and will not have a 10% bonus.
Node operators are not likely to want a payout every month, more like when it hits a threshold of 50/100(or more) tokens. So not really micro transactions, not every node operator every month. A nominal fee would be acceptable for this service - could even be cost neutral.