There are lots of ideas: but it feels like some are too complicated. SNOs don’t need help: the network has more of them (and more unused space) than required. And it has been that way for years. SNOs also stick around after payout reductions: as we’ve seen at least 3 times now.
So don’t change any rules. Don’t change any requirements. Don’t change any code…
…just drop $/TB/month payouts by a small amount (maybe $1.25/TB/m?) so Storjs costs drop a bit and show progress to the bankruptcy management. And watch the community over the next few months for their reaction.
Apply the change to the Aug payouts. Keep it simple.
(Edit: Maybe keep Aug payments the same, and lower the Sept rates. There’s something to be said about SNOs providing space at an expected rate all of July… so don’t change it retroactively after they’ve “already done the work”. Announce a lower rate now, and have it effective in the Sept payout)
Rrrrabit, Yeas, i can allow speed tests from satellite and throttle actual customers.
They are throtled, thats agains agreement with Storj, if i get detected i get banned.
90% of people will not dare or bother to risk that.
Do i throttled specific customer or all customers?
all customers, my machine serves egress with 1Mbps, then can a mystery customer audit that over some period of time, that the speed from this node is always max 1Mbps?
Also i once wrote something like that, maybe that can be helpful:
i guess node stats are known to satellite, or can be known? i mean success ratio, so extremely bad performing nodes should be very visible.
for me, incentive to serve free egress is keeping the network, that pays me $1.5/TB storage. If i wont give free egress the network will fail, and i loose. Also bad rate on egress should influence how much ingress that i get, so its correlated, and incentivizes me to NOT throttle anything.
Alex You ask for examples buy yet promoting competition is not allowed on this forum, so i cant…i will send You examples in PM
are you sure? we have at least 94 group members who actively circumventing any rule and control from 400TB to PBs of customers’ data. They literally hold this data hostage. And that’s not an exaggeration.
You didn’t suggest any technical or economical way to disallow this. Free egress will also add a downgrade of the connection. Asymmetric plans are still popular along ISPs. Ingress 1Gbps and egress 20Mbps is not fantastic, it has a price and it likely will be lower than symmetric 1Gps/1Gps.
yes, per customer.
This is because you are not a member of that group. They will teach you, how to squeeze any buck from anything. Because they are not altruists, they are clearly rationalas. They are not bother that the company could die due to their actions. They are here for money. Only for money.
Yes. Believe them. Count on it. Being motivated by money is very very common!
And realize they will act to continue making money… even if it’s a bit less money. They will not act in a way that stops them from making money. Especially money that has been getting reliably paid monthly for years…
I also like the ideea of a variable payout rate, a percent of revenue from customers. This way, Storj Inc will always know that this x percent of revenue goes to operators and will also stop this payout negociation year after year with such incertenty for us. Long therm plans people, not just let’s get thrugh another day and we’ll see.
The network thrives? We all make more money, the network is in trouble, we all take damage. Seems pretty fair to me.
Also, we could implement a voting system, were we, operators, have something to say for network changes. To be part of, each one could buy/rent a seat at the table at a fix price, in tokens, and each seat would have the same voting power.
The only problem is do Storj sells seats to operators or nodes?
If it sells to nodes, than whoever has more nodes, with some age or data stored restrictions, than he has more voting power. Could we accept that?
To sell to operators is a complicated thing; how Storj identifyes them? By wallet? By IP? This can quickly degenerate in something unwanted.
That’s this. Allowing SNOs to buy ownership (private stock) in Storj.
It can depend on the class of the stock: but they typically come with voting rights on larger company changes. The more you own the stronger your vote: and if they pay dividends the more-you-own the more-you-earn
There is no difference to the current system. The customer pricing is fixed and not dynamic right now. If the network thrives it means all of us are storing more data. If you divide your payout by TB you end up with a fixed rate. Ok there would be some fluctuation depending on how much egress the customer is paying for but in general it would be the same. If the network is in trouble less money from the customer but also less TB to divide it. Would still be the same rate.
Is there any possibility of offering tiered storage, where customers can pay more for something like an “SSD tier” where their data goes on the fastest available nodes? SNOs wouldn’t need to be paid more, they would naturally be incentivized by receiving a larger share of the data.
Or does that end up with the same issue of needing some kind of speed test in such a way that you can’t cheat?
Isn’t the system already prioritizing the fastest nodes (and even has some short-term memory of which nodes there are)?
I remember during the load-testing days the concern was that it was so effective at filling faster nodes… that they were worried all the fast nodes would fill (then lead to slower service)
The repair runs shouldn’t just be used to stabilize the network’s RS numbers, but actively used to redistribute from nodes that do not perform to those that do. No payment for repair egress = faster more stable network.