@John, thanks for that extensive response. I appreciate the transparency and sharing the original sheet as well. It allowed me to verify some assumptions I had made about the estimator.
But let me first respond to whether I think the estimator is still needed.
I would say it definitely is. You can explain the SNO economics into the minute detail, but without a realistic explanation of what kind of usage a SNO can expect, it’s impossible to make a determination on whether it is worth it for you. And I think unfortunately that’s exactly where the current estimator is lacking.
Let me take an example from your post.
I’m sure this isn’t intentionally, but download traffic on the network is actually capped by data stored on the node much more than it is by upload speed from the node. To the point where your remark is basically just wrong for almost anyone. In your other post (which I appreciated a lot btw) you mentioned that you plan on downloading test data at similar rate to which customer data is downloaded. Which is 10%. Luckily I calculated about the same percentage and used that in my version of the calculator. So we’re on the same page. My node has been around since the beginning and I’m now storing 7.5TB. I think we can assume this is close to the max per node. That translates to 750GB download per month. That can be done with a 2.3mbit line. Even with my assumption that only 1/3rd of bandwidth can be used anything over 7mbit would be limited by the amount stored and not the upload speed. And since most nodes won’t store/share that much and the minimum upload speed requirement to start a node is listed as 5mbit, it’s almost more fair to say it isn’t at all dependent on upload speed. Now this doesn’t take into account losing the race to other nodes, which at some point will kick in. But it wouldn’t surprise me if 10mbit upload is enough to manage pretty average performance on that as well and anything beyond that probably doesn’t help all that much.
As a result of this, the biggest determining factors for node profitability are in fact speed of data growth per node (with free space available) and rate of amount downloaded compared to stored. These aren’t based on node specs, but rather properties of the network. Neither of which are communicated on a regular basis or included in the calculator. This results in the forum being full of posts of SNOs saying: “I have 1gbps up and down and I’m not making anything!!!”. The wrong expectation is being set for these SNOs and community members are forced to tell them this isn’t mining, usage is based on customer demand. The first time they hear this shouldn’t be after they complained on a forum. You already have an angry, disappointed and annoyed SNO by then.
Now it’s not my intention to blindly bash the original estimator, because the following statement is very true.
Because of this the differences were understandable. But we know a little more now. You have much more data internally to determine those 2 key numbers I mentioned earlier and they can be updated from time to time based on new information. I even understand incorporating some future growth expectations in those. There is an argument to be made to be a little more optimistic to attract new SNOs as well as to correct for more business down the line.
There is one element left I want to specifically respond to.
I could not agree more. But as of now, nothing prepares SNOs for the less than $5 total earnings over the first 3 months no matter how great your hardware and connection is. This means you’re losing a lot of SNOs before they ever get to that long term earning potential. They expect about 25% of maximum earning potential looking at just the held back amount (if they are even aware of that part, because it’s currently not mentioned on a page you would come across during sign up).
I think it’s important to clearly show SNOs that it takes about half a year to start seeing some more serious earnings and the impact is much higher than just the held back amount. My version shows this clearly and encourages SNOs to stick around much more than the current estimator does. Chances are the SNO will just assume the current estimator was a lie during the first 6 months and stop running their node. I’ve already heard that response from a co-worker of mine who is running a node as well now. Just look at this example of an extremely high spec node.
That’s still $2.07 in the first 3 months.
I’ve seen several posts of people saying: “I have 300TB of space available to share”. This version of the calculator would show them that that would not make much of a difference. It also prevents people from buying large servers that they won’t earn back.
I just think you should own the fact that Storj isn’t meant to run on large server setups. Anyone can participate, but there is a limit to what you can earn. This helps the network stay decentralized. It’s a good thing for most SNOs. Embrace that and be upfront about what that means for larger setups.
And by all means, adjust the two key factors I mentioned before in the calculator if you have new information. With future expansion especially into CDN like use cases there may obviously be a big change in usage patterns. So make it easy to update those two numbers when it’s relevant.
Ok, I think that’s everything. Sorry about the rather long post, but I think setting the correct expectation is important to keep SNOs happy and make them stick around.