Let's talk about the elephant in the room: The Storj economic model (node operator payout model)

Regarding the warrant canary, please refer to JT’s statement here

Pasting the link here to directly answer your question, but its a bit off topic for this thread so if you could please be mindful of keeping topics in their respective threads it will be much easier for everyone, especially future users searching these topics. Thanks!


As I mentioned it earlier, the model is not healthy Longterm business viability of storj

The thing is, you underpay the node operators already, so you can’t cut off someone’s arm who you’ve stolen their legs already. The problem starts at the very beginning, where you do charge way too less for the service you offer and at the same time have a way too high overhead due to your ideology: The network is build of non professional users you can’t trust so you need resiliency by overhead, instead of the more economic, the network is build upon (semi-) professionals that you can rely and trust upon and optimize the overhead.

Considering your plans of third party satellites, that would be effectively cannibalizing your own business right? Unless it is still integrated into your revenue stream.

The number of vetted nodes has almost doubled in the past year and is accelerating. So they currently pay more than enough for 19.3k nodes at 26.3PB of available space. So they dont underpay and have room to cut when they need too. If they underpaid the amount of available storage would be falling.

yes, I guess you don’t mind sharing all the numbers and show us the financial plan covering all the expenses (electricity, cooling and so on).

My nodes are quite profitable but I set out to use second hand hardware from the outset. Used enterprise drives from eBay have several years left in them. Of the eight 6tb drives I bought, only one started failing a few months ago and I replaced it. Two of them came with bad sectors but I ran read write tests across all the drives several times and the bad sector count has remained constant. I only pay attention when the number of bad sectors starts increasing or attribute 187 is non-zero (per back blaze’s drive reports, 187 is one of the tell tale signs a drive is dying).

Using mostly existing hardware, my additional power draw if about 75w. I make about $120 a month currently. That’s about $100 profit, allowing me to buy a 20TB HDD every 4 months if I wanted. Yeah, it’s plenty profitable. Not get rich quick profitable, but more than fair compensation for service provided.

That said, usage is growing faster than supply atm. Lowering payouts is a tricky thing to do. I think there’s room to do it, but they’ll have to be smart about it.

You can do that, that is gambling of course and 12 month is plenty to loose such a drive on, but if the price is low enough that can work out.

except that it is not growing that fast. we have a few test nodes running for more than a year even though we’re not convinced, just to see how good the network actually performs in reality. They made only 90$ in total within that time. So not even remotely profitable and none of the nodes were filled up even near to their capacity. So yeah.


It takes about 2 years to earn back the cost of a 20TB HDD and in the next year, you make enough to buy almost 2 more. At that time it’s also about to fill up. If you can keep running costs down, this is a great deal. The only downside is that it doesn’t scale due to IP filtering. But over the course of a 5 year lifetime (warranty period for the HDD’s I use) it would make about $2750. For an initial cost of $400 and marginal power costs per HDD.

I agree. My monthly income with capacity to spare used to be around $50/mo with a single full 14 TiB drive, now the rate is far slower with three drives bringing in less than $25/month gross. There is little to no profit.

I tend to disagree. Have a node 20 months old alone in a /24 subnet on a 200Mbit symmetrical dedicated line - business grade Internet access running on a Dell R740, and in 20 months it made $130 with roughly 5TB filled. Estimated earnings are around $16 this month, lets make it an average of $20 for the next 4 months, which will be $210 earned in 2 years. Lets say the held amount is $0. 20TB Exos is currently €358. Have another nodes running on a DSL and FTTH at couple of other places and they have approximately the same earnings. I think I can’t blame the hardware or access for this but it might be due to a physical location in eastern parts of the Europe, so your mileage might vary.

You are almost certainly sharing your subnet with another node. You should have way more than 5TB filled after 20 months. At least double. You can check here for other nodes on your subnet. Neighbors

I know about that page and have a script monitoring it (and the other nodes) and it is the only node on this subnet. Besides that it is an old /24 RIPE assignment just for us, but for obvious reasons I won’t be giving out our ASN or IP. So that is 100% not the problem, I promise.

1 Like

If it’s not that, there is something else. I’m monitoring nodes on multiple subnets (my own and of a few friends) and all of them have about double the ingress you are seeing. Consistently. Your case is not representative.

When I had a node I also had very little data, also Eastern Europe, no one from Storj Labs was interested in it, so I no longer have a node and I no longer subsidize the operation of this company…

and as I see now it is still terrible with data distribution in my areas, so I am not going back to run node…

It might be different for older nodes, you might be getting more repair egress for example. Nothing else comes to mind really. Download and upload success rates are above 98% most of the time, currently lowest uptime is 99.92 as I was moving from physical drive to LVM and during the rsync I had to shutdown. On some of the satellites in some months it was even 100%. As I said, maybe western parts of the Europe are more profitable because of more customers closer to the nodes, but of course I’m not blaming anyone for anything, I also appreciate your work, just saying what my experience is.

As long as a node is vetted, it’s age doesn’t matter for ingress. And I monitor nodes of different ages that confirm this. I can’t really explain why nodes in a specific area would accumulate less data. The nodes I monitor are in the Netherlands, Germany and one in the US. And all see quite similar behavior. Unfortunately success rates aren’t very reliable. It’s still possible you are losing races and data gets removed in garbage collection without you noticing.

That might be the case, yes, as every GC run it looks like significant amount of data is moved to trash (currently sitting at 118GB).

I have 2 node on one ip one is 8 month ols has 1.76TB
second is 7 month old has 1.54 TB As they treated as one node all together it is 3.3TB in 8 Month
so it is very interesting why you have 5TB in 20 months.
connection is only 50mbit for them.
And I am in Estonia, so is not western EU at all.

1 Like

Did check the node stats and May 1st 2022 (if my math is correct that is 8 months until Dec/31st) the used space on this one was 2.127TB, which adding yours 3.3TB would make it 5.427TB. The exact used space on it ATM is 5.160TB. I think this can be explained by the period of mediocre ingress in the past, meaning the last 8 months ingress was significantly higher than in the previous period. I think we can agree that ingress picked up only recently. You are also bordering some of the best economies in Europe, which can’t unfortunately be told about the area around here, so the long tail cancellation might play a role here as mentioned by @BrightSilence. So really it doesn’t look that much impossible.