Storj will remain on Ethereum and continue to use the chain for payouts.
If you are looking for L1 alternatives, please consider zkSync Era.
It will be available soon and offer some advantages you may be searching for.
Did you read the part with “Cross-Chain Technology: Hedera and Ethereum”?
Also, did you read the comparision?
If you read it, you will realize something huge. All the layer alternatifs even the next layers are a joke compared to hashgraph.
But whatever, let’s see how it goes.
There is no benefits in jumping between solutions. Especially based on such a ridiculous articles. Etherium and zksync work just fine. There is no point in adopting emerging risky solutions when the existing ones work just fine. There is no problem to be solved.
Also, generally, FYI, if you haven’t noticed yet, if the headline is made in the form of a question, the answer is always “no”. Feel free to use this to save tons of time reading news. (Or stop reading crappy news outlet who do that)
Hedera vs Ethereum: Is It Time to Leave the Giant?
it’s very likely. There are a lot of sidechains and mirrors like Polygon, but they are far away from adoption of Ethereum and zkRollups like zkSync (even Lite), if no talking about zkSync Era.
It could be a wallet feature, if they compatible with Ethereum and do not require participate in their market (make positions, buy something useless and so on). They should allow to transparently use Ethereum addresses to receive STORJ tokens, and of course should have STORJ tokens listed/registered/whatever.
It also should been a popular, otherwise it makes no sense - we dropped support of Polygon wallet feature a while ago exactly because it was not popular:
Yes, I did not, I did not go past the headline. The headline was enough, I don’t trust that outlet. But I did not need to read it. It makes no difference what the solution is, and that’s the point you are seemingly missing.
You are presenting a straw man argument here.
Nobody said that power efficient and cheap transactions are somehow bad or that nobody shall innovate in that space.
The argument here is storj is a storage provider company, not a crypto innovator or promoter. Storj is using crypto tokens to facilitate payments and manage capital. As such, it’s in the Storj’s best interest to use time proven, reliable, established solutions, with features they need. They’ve picked etherium.
It’s established, stable, and works. Switching to any other, let alone emerging, solution is taking unnecessary risk and distracting from their main mission. Storj is nowhere near size of Google, LG, IBM, (I don’t know why you stick Ubisoft in the list but whatever) and cannot throw massive resource investment on researching, designing, and implementing a solution for a non-existent problem, just for the heck of it. Literally, it would be investing for negative average return: best case – it works. Just like it already does with etherium. Worst case – it flops, or presents massive technical challenges, like literarily any technical stuff does.
So what’s the benefit for storj? None.
Also, marking your own snarky straw-man comment as solution is a bit disingenuous. You have been provided actual explanation in the comments above.
All true. But still when I lookup a transaction in Dogecoin the price is 0.0007 USD. And that’s despite the massive gain in usage and popularity that coin had received.
I did not follow it but I think transaction cost never went above the 1 cent target even when it spike thousands of percents in value.
Storj could have saved lots of money on development hours and on transaction costs and even on transaction costs for their node operators, if they would pay their node operators in Dogecoin. The only goal of Dogecoin was and probably still is to be a coin for payment not a get rich quick scheme and not some fancy smart contract chain. Just a means of payment. This is pretty much what Storj is trying with STORJ. With Dogecoins transaction cost of .0007 USD it meets that goal pretty damn well much better than tokens on ETH.
The other blockchain is not an option for many reasons, include legal ones. We does not have any plans to switch a blockchain. You cannot imagine how is it expensive regarding money, development time, legal registrations/regulations and transition issues.
We did it once and do not want to repeat this “great experience”.
We also do not want to spend time to explore bugs on alien/emerging blockchain and fix them. We have many tasks todo in our primary goal - a decentralized S3-compatible end-to-end encrypted cloud storage, not play with crypto.
For cost effective transfers we suggest to use zkSync. When our token contract will be registered on zkSync Era - it should be cost effective for Storage Node Operators too. And with extending adoption it is a scalable solution with fast transfers, batches and Ethereum-compatible EVM, so switching to zkSync Era for web3 Ethereum applications can be done without changing the code.