This contradicts the observations: Nodes count keeps increasing and storage surplus does not reduce.
So even if the majority of sno have different opinion, their actions contradict those alleged opinions.
To reiterate, my point is the for network stability payout shall be small enough to discourage folks with miner mentality to join – they are volatile and cause churn when they leave when it becomes “unprofitable”. Only the very boring operators remain, who are not here to make money, but don’t mind however small offset on expensive of running their servers. This inherently yields much better and stable system.
Have you seen amount of repair traffic lately? It’s insane.
I have no evidence for this, and this is exactly the behavior low payout shall fix.
No, it is not like that at all.
I just described the incentive. Network health is an incentive.
Look, all my nodes pay $100/month. do you really think it makes any dent in anything? If it was $25 or $300 it woudl still not make any difference. But it makes huge difference on the node turnover, as it crosses imaginary thresholds of “profitability” in peoples minds.
This is the issue. This mentality is what I’m talking about. Storj does not want such operators that jump ship when what they think is profitability threshold that only exists in their heads is crossed.
And this is beside the obvious: Node cannot lose your money. It pays money. Without node, you have exactly same expenses, just without storj helping you cover them.
If you disagree, if you built hardware for strorj – then that’s precisely what I’m talking about: Payouts are too high, they incentivize people to bring new systems online to make money. This is bad for the network. Because when common sense hits – they leave, cue repair traffic.
(empathy mode kicks in, did not have coffee yet) yes, it was quite tempting, especially with the storj incessant promises to onboard the new customer and this madness becoming the new normal.
Tangent on the drive dying: start buying used enterprise disks. They don’t die. They are half price. And when they do develop bad sectors occasionally - GHD and similar vendors replace them no questions asked. When I was buying new disks like a peasant I was spending money on mailing RMA almost monthly. Once I switched to refurb/remanufactured/used enterprise disks – 7 years and counting. Not a single failure, outside of minor few bad sectors here and there, which I ignore – 1 sector out of 40 million is absolutely acceptable failure rate. My experience is anecdotal, but not too narrow - I have about 40 disks working total across servers.