I feel like it was already unprofitable before you ever began…
It’s important to separate out the two issues in this thread: the payout mechanics and the payout economics.
First let’s talk about the payout mechanics:
ETH tx fees aren’t just a Storj problem, they impact every ERC20 compatible token. Micropayments are painful. We are looking at all options to address the problem. We’re also looking at ways to ease the transition to default L2 payouts.
The Ethereum ecosystem has been working on scaling solutions for a very long time. Multiple options are emerging, but none of them are a complete solution yet.
We were an early adopter of L2 solutions. We’ve been working with Matter labs off and on for years and have tried everything along the way that looked promising all the way back to Raiden and Microraiden.
We’re committed to the long term viability of the network and to ensuring its long term economically viable for nodes to operate.
Right now, we’re looking at a range of L2 solutions in addition to zkSync so that node operators have a choice. zkSync is actively working on support with exchanges.
We’re also seeing very promising movement with Ethereum moving to PoS and burning Gas fees as a path toward higher scale, lower cost, greater efficiency and even a lower impact on the environment through lower energy consumption.
Ultimately, we expect all of these trends will converge and enable node payments to operate at both low and high scale. We’re doing the best we can to be fair and transparent as we navigate the current pain points.
With regard to the actual payout economics, again, this is an area where we anticipate there will be change, but we have time to get it right.
Right now, we’re in growth mode. We are heavily incentivizing new customers with a free tier and aggressive pricing. The network is really working well and that’s dependent on a network of decentralized storage node operators. We’re seeing good results and happy customers, which is great.
We’re also finding a wide range of use cases. Like any service, over time we’ll find the best use cases, with the best product market fit, and the right packaging and pricing.
At the same time, we’ll see the network evolve over time with more satellites operated by the community, partners and others, also driving demand for storage nodes.
What we’re committed to is ensuring that is is economically rewarding and viable to operate a storage node for the long term.
We do not anticipate that there will be significant changes that impact node operators any time soon. The network will change and evolve a lot over the coming years, but it only works long term if the incentive structure works for all of the participants in the network.
9 Likes
Thank you for your post John.
Reads much better than the post below. So I very much hope the above is true as opposed to what is written below.
If you don’t research what to expect beforehand everything is “potentially profitable”. 
@jtolio , I really appreciate you sharing some info with us regarding payouts. So I wanted to start with that. I agree with @jocelyn that this is quite special and very helpful for the community.
Unfortunately the inclusion of the quoted line is necessarily going to be the topic of attention. I think at the moment you don’t have the sufficient lines of communication with SNOs to change this default. In the past, email notifications to SNOs have been inconsistent. During setup, node operators weren’t informed that the email they use might be used for critical information and so many have used either a fake email address or one they don’t pay attention to.
Combine this with the fact that quite a few node operators use exchange addresses for their payouts, changing to L2 would have them lose their payouts and only very complicated processes left to get it back. I would really advise to not put SNO’s (and frankly… your support staff) through this.
That said, I do see your dilemma. If you want to encourage more people to make that switch, give them a reason to. Perhaps slowly raise the threshold to only paying out when transaction costs are less than 10% of the payout on L1. And on the other end, offering a small incentive for payouts to those who’ve switched to compensate for the inconvenience. Maybe just a 5-10% bonus for the rest of the year or something.
Furthermore, if you really want to force people to make a conscious decision, then withhold distribution of payouts until they’ve set a preference for either L1 or zkSync. Preferably after you’ve already tried to use an incentive structure to make people want to switch. At least that way you won’t send payouts into a black hole for people who use an address tied to an exchange or have a wallet that doesn’t support zkSync.
I fully understand that none of these options are perfect and you’re going to get some negativity thrown at you one way or the other. But I think there are things that could be done to prevent the worst of it.
I tend to agree on most decisions made by Storj Labs, but forcing this switch just doesn’t feel right.
13 Likes
No just means yes apparently…
1 Like
Why didn’t I get paid $ 80-100? I don’t care that the commission in the end was high because at the start it was $ 8-15 and it was YOU who pulled with payments and paid a penny less than 1 token. It’s disgusting! On the other hand, I temporarily turned off (for 3-4 weeks) all my nodes and replaced them with chia. If will not be better, then I will permanently delete the nodes without an elegant exit.
1 Like
Make it 5 weeks for a better effect.
2 Likes
No, well, I’m not an idiot. 
I’m looking for my own benefit. If chia will produce the same or greater income with less effort/cost, then the choice will be obvious.
1 Like
I wonder how you can shut down nodes for 3 weeks and use them for chia and then bring them back online? Where did you store all those files from the storagenodes in the meantime? VHS?
4 Likes
Glad im not the only one who thought it sounded crazy…
If the payment is only zkSync, I turn off all my 39 nodes and more than 110 Terabytes of information.
I will go to Chia and be happy.
Developers now you risk losing SNO!
3 Likes
This month I was expecting bonuses, prizes.
Now hard drives have become very expensive, and if the developers don’t start rewarding the project, the project will die.
2 Likes
You are completely right.
Storj company seems to suffer some kind of corporate madness or NIH syndrome…
Anyway, stick with it because they do pay their bills. Maybe a little late. But sometimes they over pay too. Mad!
It is exactly what I’ve done. Except not exactly.
I have 9 nodes stuffed onto 1 drive and the drives doing the chia arms race.
I got 2 xch which is stuck somewhere in China (gate.io) so no payout there either
I run 3 nodes on the same drive but that’s not shutting it down. And even with 9 nodes on a single drive, why shut them down for multiple weeks and earn nothing? (well disregarding the io-storm when starting them).
I’m wondering too.
@andrew2.hart & @NotPaidForBugReport Also, while your nodes are offline, their data actually starts being relocated to other nodes as the network considers your nodes as unhealthy and potentially lost, so they might get massive amount of data sent to trash when putting them online again, because a lot of pieces won’t be attached to your nodes anymore.
Besides, be sure not to forget to put them back online before 30 days of being offline, or they may get disqualified for good! 
The 10th node is off because I have nowhere to plug it. It has not been disqualified yet and I don’t know why.
So I could turn it back on? Maybe?
Guess it’s a “Schrödinger’s node” then As long as you don’t check, it will neither be disqualified, nor will it work 
Just try and you’ll know for sure.
1 Like
Let’s be honest!
-
Everyone knows that you pump up the price and then start with payments - it’s the same every month. After the payments, of course, the price of the token goes down and SNO will end up with very little to come.
-
The developer made the decision to switch to a contract, and now SNO suffers because it does not receive its money.
Even those who received payment in a month - to transfer to the exchange - lose almost everything they earn. -
Now there is a strong competitor and the prices for components have increased greatly. In Chia, you do not need to buy additional locations, IP addresses, minimum Internet speed - everything is very simple.
And most importantly, income immediately! In Storj, the nodes are almost not filled now and the new SNO do not receive anything for the first 3-6 months. This means that if you lose the old ones, you will not replace them with the new ones! -
If you impose severe restrictions, you will make decisions with authoritarianism - the SNO will leave, the project will die - and you will be summoned to court for an “artificial bankruptcy” claim.
I expect you, as always, to delete the posts that speak the truth, but I warned you!
4 Likes
Wow you’re blaming storjlabs for a lot of things… And even claim that they deliberately manipulate the market… That is quite a serious accusation but of course, lacking proof… as always…
3 Likes