We definitely regret anyone that left because of the $50 minimum. They are of course more than welcome to come back.
We are working to update the web assets now. Sharing with the community was very high on the list.
Seriously? Do you enjoy the Reddit drama so much? Why is Storj making the same mistakes over and over and gambling with the trust of their customers?
So the drama continues:
https://www.reddit.com/r/storj/comments/1uwe4n4/rolling_back_on_the_minimum/
They canât be serious. Iâve already moved to backblaze, no shot am I going back
omg they just repeat the same mistakes over and over for years ⌠very sad with their potential
Too late. I donât trust them any more anyway.
Holy shit! Waaaay too late. I moved on and burned my account and storage node. Such a shame. This project is going down.
Yea, also moved my backups to wasabi, even though the storj tech is really cool.
my data is already on Cloudflare.
Wtf I already got all my data off storj.
And as Storj still has not announced that their previous CEO Colby Winegar is no longer in charge and has left the company they are blaming him:
Colby Winegar should have thought this through.
I am really wondering how much longer Storj wants to hide that fact.
So you would prefer to keep the $50 minimum in place? Because of reddit? Sorry I donât understand what you are trying to suggest here.
I think jammerdan is pointing out that the constant announcements and retractions are hurting Storj, and that is obvious.
Make silent pricing updates instead? I donât think that is possible.
I mean making hasty announcements, forgetting to exempt TrueNAS users from the price hike, and backtracking only after the damage is done. Leadership requires a steady hand.
And the complaints on Reddit reflect this.
Eh, better to fix a mistake than to live with it.
Now add 1x free egress per month and we might have a product that sells. 
Reddit is not representative of the real world. Itâs unfortunate but it is what it is.
New leadership at Storj has enabled us to retain 5$ minimum. Every dollar must be profitable and previous leadership took the $50 path. Our path is more scalpel than hammer.
We realize it will take time to win people over and we intend to do just that. (Except perhaps Reddit crew) 
.
Separately, Iâm elated to how the price increases have gone over which better align, to the quality/capability of the service and is necessary to run a healthy business. Customers are still giving us feedback that weâre the best value. Our intentions are not to be a âcheapâ service, rather a performant, highly reliable service that provides the best total value.
No one is saying it didnât need fixing, but perhaps the problem shouldnât have been created in the first placeâand for what? There is plenty of space. We have a saying in Italy: âCount to ten before you speak.â
As already mentioned above, the people who made that mistake are no longer with us. Onward and upward 
I understand that costs are increasing everywhere, and every business needs to think about profitability. However, I have one question: when will the compensation for storage node operators increase?
Node operators are the foundation of the Storj network. Electricity, hardware, internet, storage drives, and maintenance costs have all gone up over the years. If customer pricing is being adjusted to improve sustainability, is there also a plan to review and increase payments for storage node operators?
I think the community would appreciate more transparency about this.
Why should storj increase payment when there is more than enough space available at current price? I guess they could even decrease payment⌠
If I were speaking on behalf of the storage node operators, I would honestly find your response dismissive.
Do you really believe storage node operators are so unimportant that they deserve an answer like this?
Node operators provide the infrastructure that keeps the network running. They deserve respect and a serious discussionânot to have their concerns brushed aside with a one-line comment.
If you believe payouts should not increase, thatâs a valid opinion. But please explain why, rather than dismissing the people who make this network possible.
Didnât I do that? There is a significant oversupply of provided space. In a free market this leads to lower prices.
Storj has had significantly more SNO capacity than they need for years now: even planning for solid growth over the next year. They should be considering lowering payouts - thatâs just proper business planning.
But it sounds like theyâre making the current economics work - so they may just want to leave SNOs alone and focus on growing into the capacity available.
Thatâs not being dismissive: itâs just realizing that the value of the next 1TB added to the network is effectively zero: thereâs already plenty of free space. Donât increase payouts when so much of whatâs available is sitting idle.
Then why is Storj actively promoting storage node operators on CoinMarketCap and other platforms?
If the network already has more than enough capacity and doesnât need additional node operators, why continue advertising that anyone can earn by contributing unused storage?
Doesnât that create expectations for people who join the network?
You asked about increasing payouts: that covers used-space. I guess we put that to bed⌠and now youâre asking about the same-payouts for more-free-space?
It costs Storj almost nothing to have more SNOs with unused space (other than the satellite power to track them) - because they donât pay for empty space. If they can have more options of where to store data⌠without financial burden⌠of course theyâll do it.
The expectations are clear: SNOs should expect to be paid for used space (but not trash 
).
So if the network truly has more than enough capacity, why continue advertising for more storage node operators?
Wouldnât it be more transparent to tell people that new nodes may wait a long time before receiving meaningful data?
After all, someone who doesnât need parking doesnât spend time looking for more parking spaces.
The same question applies here: if Storj already has all the storage capacity it needs, why keep recruiting more storage providers?
The marginal cost of Storj having more options in places to store data is near zero. If theyâve already paid for infrastructure to support 33000 nodes⌠itâs almost impossible to determine how much more they pay to support node #33001: itâs almost nothing.
I donât think Iâve seen Storj make any sort of claims about how fast a node will fill. Do you have a link?
Itâs valuable for them to have a variety of places to store data: especially when attracting new nodes is dirt cheap. But itâs not worth it to increase payouts: because they already have more than enough empty-space at their current rates: paying more would provide them no more value.
Paying almost nothing for lots-of-empty-nodes = good
Paying more for used-space when so much space is idle = bad 