If the operation itself as it is positive, then the situation is very different than otherwise.
As I have already said, to make useful suggestions, we need to know the full extent of the problem. So the main question is, are we operational positive at current rate or not?
Thanks for the compliment. English is not my native language. I write the substance in German and use AI to translate and structure it.
The length comes from the number of factual points I am trying to address, not from AI inventing my position. I will keep this reply as compact as possible.
In the meantime, I paid for access to the actual court attachments: the declaration, the DIP agreement and the 12-week cash-flow budget. The figures below therefore come from Storj’s own filed court documents.
Thank you for confirming that SNO payouts are included in the operating budget and that a payout reduction is already factored in. That is an important clarification.
The filed budget covers only the period from August 4 to October 25. It projects:
- $930,634 in customer cash inflows;
- $1,309,759 in total cash outflows;
- a $379,125 funding shortfall;
- $388,000 in DIP financing;
- and only $8,875 remaining at the end of week 12.
This means that the DIP facility is not a long-term restructuring runway. It is a tightly balanced 12-week bridge that ends almost exactly at zero.
The budget contains $390,854 under “Cost of Goods Sold,” divided into a $191,000 payment on August 24–25 and a $199,854 payment during September 21–27.
The budget does not separately identify SNO payouts. Since you have confirmed that SNO payouts are included and that a reduction is already assumed, could you please confirm whether this Cost of Goods Sold line consists mainly or entirely of SNO payouts?
This raises four specific questions:
-
What exact payout-rate reduction or expansion-factor reduction is assumed in the budget?
-
Is the $191,000 payment scheduled for August 24–25 intended to be the complete July SNO payout?
-
What periods and obligations are included in the separately filed $296,316.79 prepetition “SNO liability”?
-
How many dollars does the assumed SNO reduction save during the 12-week budget period?
The timing is also important. The budget assumes DIP advances of $100,000 in week 1, $160,000 in week 3 and $128,000 in week 6. The proposed interim approval initially authorises only $100,000, while the remaining funding depends on final approval.
Without the additional $160,000 scheduled before the first $191,000 Cost of Goods Sold payment, the budget would fall into a cash deficit by August 24–25.
My argument is not that Storj should do nothing.
The question is how much survival runway the SNO reduction actually purchases after the resulting network risk is taken into account.
A reduction that provides six or twelve months of runway may be a rational restructuring measure. A reduction that merely helps balance a 12-week bridge, while potentially causing large operators to remove petabytes of used storage, may reduce rather than improve the probability of a successful restructuring.
The budget also shows that employee-, contractor- and payroll-related cash outflows total approximately $595,000 during the period, compared with $390,854 in total Cost of Goods Sold.
I accept your statement that the remaining team and internal expenses have already been reduced to the minimum required to operate the service. However, the budget demonstrates that reducing SNO payouts cannot resolve the structural funding gap by itself.
When you previously said that multi-million-dollar financing had already been completed and was still ongoing, were you referring to the historical Inveniam funding that now appears as a $4,037,963.40 prepetition unsecured claim, or is there additional committed post-petition financing beyond the current $388,000 DIP facility?
Finally, reducing the storage expansion factor is not economically different from a payout reduction for operators if it produces the same reduction in paid stored data.
If it also reduces redundancy or repair headroom, the proposed factor and the corresponding durability, repair-traffic and simultaneous-departure modelling should be published before that option is implemented.
The most important remaining question is therefore: what is the concrete financing or transaction plan after October 25, when this 12-week budget ends with only $8,875 remaining?
Now that’s amazing. Would you be willing to help to make them available for the community for free so we would not pay multiple times for the same pieces of information?
Yes, sure. Is there a specific way to upload documents to the forum?
Can I DM you first???
Yes sure, I am available
Sorry I don’t know the answers on any of these questions. To my knowledge the storagenode payout is included. To what extend I don’t know. There is another thread with an email address to the person that has a lot more knowledge on this. I would suggest to use that. Also keep me in the loop please. I would love to hear the answer to those questions. Maybe we should team up in a separate thread?
My Storj node payout tiers — rate cut I could absorb (setup private):
• Survival: −65% → $0.52 / $0.69 per TB
• Barely sustainable: −49% → $0.77 / $1.02 per TB
• Slow growth: −24% → $1.14 / $1.52 per TB
• Moderate growth: +1% → $1.51 / $2.02 per TB
(− = reduction from today’s rates · storage $/TB · egress $/TB · scaled together per RS balance)
looking on this numbers, acceptable rate will depend on the utilization of the drives (scale)
Thanks. I’m not sure which thread or email address you mean.
Please feel free to open a separate thread and tag me there. You can also include the correct contact email so I know whom to approach directly.
I’ll then post the relevant court documents and keep the discussion focused on the SNO liability, the budgeted payout assumptions, the reduction already built into the budget, and the runway after October 25.
@GfTmbH @jammerdan lets try this. Please create a new thread and write down your questions. I will try to get that in front of Shuja.
Maybe we just use the thread @jammerdan already created?
I did the calculation, don’t know if it’s a number to rely on?!
My Storj node payout tiers — rate cut I could absorb (setup private):
• Survival: −23% → $1.15 / $1.54 per TB
• Barely sustainable: +73% → $2.60 / $3.46 per TB
• Slow growth: +227% → $4.90 / $6.54 per TB
• Moderate growth: +291% → $5.87 / $7.82 per TB
(− = reduction from today’s rates · storage $/TB · egress $/TB · scaled together per RS balance)
What’s more important to me is a stable currency and not this unstable token “fraud”. At payout you call it “It’s worth 20$”, hours later I relalized it’s not even worth 15$ anymore.
So how should a SNO do a proper running costs calculation when Storj token value is doing the submarine? I think a first good step would be to pay what was promised, even if it’s a bit less.