@Roxor A few points:
First, the $0.15/TB cut was only the first step, and it affected storage compensation, not egress.
Second, I think you are seriously underestimating the network risk. After removing safeguards like the 24-hour rule, the amount of coordinated or malicious capacity needed to create a serious availability and repair problem becomes much smaller. Even with the old safeguards, a very small number of sufficiently large SNOs acting together could already create a situation where repair capacity becomes a real concern.
And I don’t think Storj — or you, Roxor — realize how close we have already come to exactly that kind of coordinated exit. This is not some theoretical “maybe one day” risk to me.
And third, I don’t agree that these cuts meaningfully improve Storj’s chances of surviving:
Yes, the cuts save money. But compared with the scale of the actual financial problem, those savings are tiny while the potential network-side downside is very real.
@hashbackup
First of all, I wouldn’t call them “friends.” They’re simply other SNOs who invested heavily and are now affected by the same decisions.
Second, I’m not just running a bunch of VPNs to game node selection. I built substantial infrastructure across customer servers and numerous independent hosts. And yes, if compensation is cut, some of those hosts will obviously be consolidated because costs have to come down. That doesn’t mean throwing the nodes away — the node count can remain while the underlying infrastructure is reduced.
And I’m not judging smaller SNOs for using VPNs either. Plenty do, and Storj itself hasn’t exactly been flawless in following its own commitments either — delayed payouts being an obvious example.
Most importantly, there are at least three operators running several petabytes each in a fully ToS-compliant way. Together, they account for roughly 15-20% of all subnets. Without any cheating.
