I just had a look at the Storj token report and now I wonder why there is such a rush to suddenly make the business model profitable(-ish). Only 4% of their spent tokens actually go to node operators, while the rest is (presumably) mostly sold to acquire money to pay for stuff. I specifically wonder what “repurchase of company shares” means. I don’t know much about american companies or what form of company storj is specifically. If they buy back shares, do these belong to the company? Who did they belong to before? Or is someone (e.g. the CxOs) using Storj tokens to buy back shares so they can sell the company with a larger profit once the storage model is profitable (on paper)?
During Q4, we used 29.9M STORJ tokens (rows 9-14): 1.2M to pay Storage Node Operators (row 9), 2.7M to pay service providers (row 11), 3.5M tokens to pay Storj team members who elect to receive some of their pay in STORJ tokens (row 13), and 22.5M tokens for the repurchase of company shares and other payments including general operations and liquidity purposes not otherwise described above.
It because lot of real client data started to move in, but process takes months of making good decision and making changes that dont hearts all at once.
You seems again missing the main point (or more like ignore it): this is expenses report, expenses from the reserves (loss report), not the revenue report.
While customers pay $11 for each TB stored and retrieved, we spent 1TB * 80/29 * $1.5/TB + 1TB * $20/TB = $24.14
And this is even without repair costs.
It’s not sustainable. The core economic units should be aligned.
I’m well aware of this, and of the fact it needs to be changed. However it seems that if Storj wouldn’t spend all their tokens on share buybacks, they would have runway for about 40 quarters or 10 years. If the current growth continues, let it be 5 years. So I think the question is legit to ask why they are financing a buyback with the locked tokens.
I asssume the reasoning is to have more shares to sell for the next financing round, it’s pretty likely the network won’t grow enough to cover the expenses once the bag of tokens is empty. But it’ll be good enough to be very interesting for investors if they can keep the growth rate.
Again, the economics units must be aligned independently on runaway. We want to have a possibility for growing. Right now every new customer comes with loss, this cannot lasts forever. It should be a reverse.
You are simple wrong. We need to reduce losses and start to gain some profit. We are not interested in trade activities, tokens are not shares and used be an utility tokens to pay for service, nothing more. Having tokens will not give you any share in the company.
Our business is a decentralized end-to-end encrypted S3-compatible cloud storage, not tokens.
I don’t think you (want to?) understand us. We are talking about the sale of 20 million tokens in exchange for actual shares that is mentioned in the token report:
and 22.5M tokens for the repurchase of company shares and other payments including general operations and liquidity purposes not otherwise described above
We all fully understand that the economics need to be changed so that customer growth means profit growth. We are just questioning why the remaining runway is suddenly heavily shortened by using tokens to buy shares.
I’m talking about economics, not tokens. There are could be thousands tokens on exchanges, it’s not related to our business.
The mentioned string is not related to the exchanges. However, I do not have much details on this and will ask the team.
However, it has no relations to the topic anyway. I would move it to another topic.
I suppose since some part of the team was let go and like in any other startup employees where partly paid in shares, they where offering to buy back the shares.