Held amount per satellite and the vetting for a new satellites

If held amount is stored with the node ID. I do wonder why the 12 month period is separate per satellite. It should be per node, regardless of satellite, but I guess this is a different conversaion.

That’s been answered a lot here on the forum but the premise is that each satellite has a separate operator, or at least will in the future once third parties can run satellites and allow SNOs to provide storage for them. This way the satellites operate as individual entities so they track nodes providing storage to each of them separately. This is also why you receive 6 payouts per node per month, each satellite is paying you separately.

Yes, but if you’re a vetted 12 month old node, why do you need to go through the same process again on another new satellite seems stupid to me, but who knows this might change in the future. I just don’t like the idea of going from month 0 on a new satellite for a node that’s been years established.

Satellites work completely independent from each other. Meaning satellite 2 has no reason to trust satellite 1 claiming your node is reliable and it can’t rely on held back amount collected by other satellites to do repairs. Right now the satellites may all be managed by storj, but in the future they won’t be. Storj operates their own satellites in the same way independent ones would.

I thought all satellites are controlled by StorJ, otherwise what stops SNO’s loosing out on the held amount if a Satellite goes rogue and disappears after 9 months then appears with a new name and IP and repeats the issue?

Currently they are. But there will be others. Storj has already mentioned there will be Tardigrade satellites managed by partners. Those would have strict SLA’s and would probably be bound to those by contracts.

But outside of even those partners, independent satellites could be set up. This is in theory already possible, but it takes a bit of manual tweaking for SNOs to actually accept traffic from those satellites. The whitepaper and other communications mentioned a vetting process happening both ways. The node would also vet the satellite to see if it’s trustworthy. Eventually I think the choice has been to simply work with a white list. So a node operator would have the choice to accept more satellites and monitor whether payout is reliable.

Back to your question, if one of those satellites stops paying, it would lose all nodes and no longer be able to function anymore. A new satellite would need to convince SNOs to white list them again, which would be a significant effort. In the mean time they will have lost all data on the old satellite and if that’s customer data, they would have lost those customers as well. Losing all trust from both ends is a really bad way to run a succesful satellite, you’re not going to survive for very long that way.

Yes, the whitelist does make sense where SNO’s could choose if they want non-StorJ satellites.

If a Satellite dissapears after 9 months, all the held amount will be paid back to each of the nodes for that Satellite. You would not need to wait until 15th month to get the 50% back and GE for the remaining 50%.

The satellite is who holds the amount.

Sure. Satellite holds a percentage of your earnings in escrow. Of course, when a Satellite exits the network, your tokens must be sent back to your wallet.