While I mostly agree with you, there is one subgroup where I think it might be proper to treat in a different way: operators who set up a node, then left the network without accumulating any non-trivial balance. In other words, people who “just tried” and were never really invested into having a Storj node.
A malicious entity could be setting up many nodes like that, let them live for few days, then explicitly disqualify. If Storj undiscriminately pays balance left on wallets with only disqualified nodes, then it would be quite easy to have Storj pay more to transfer money to these wallets than to regular node operators.
I’m not saying it’s not the right thing to do, I’ve had a few nodes DQ just because of a mistake from a SMR drive, I lost nothing but an identity file so my node could never start again. Do you think that node got paid nope after running for almost 2 years I know it didn’t because I’ve changed my payout wallet since then to a new one for all my nodes. Then I check the payouts for nodes that never gotten paid before getting a fraction of a cent for a payout for its first payout, with a fee equal to 14 to 15 dollars and I seen many like this. If a node got paid because of an honest DQ I would be ok with storj paying them but seeing this is unacceptable to me and it shouldn’t happen again. I wait almost 3 months to get a payout making a lot more then these nodes getting paid just because of a DQ I’m running my nodes honestly and I try to keep them running we don’t get payout because the fees are to high yet a node that has probably ran for less then a month gets a payout. Costing you guys money that could of been used for the nodes that have been running for months.
We are hear you and I think the rules could be adjusted later.
There should be a balance between such an edge cases, I’m agree.
We paid out only what we owed, not because it’s DQ. Just to be DQ is not enough to receive money, you node should work at least one payout cycle and have not received money before because of Minimum Payout Threshold and no other nodes on the same wallet.
I also think that Storj is not mistreating SNO’s, although it is worth to say that conditions got really difficult for us all.
Some time ago Storj even made surge payouts with increased rates which were really helpful.
I can understand the decision to hold the payouts cause of high fees (technically).
But what makes me Angry is the recurring argument, the community wanted the threshold.
Sorry, i have a totally different Impression.
It was a overnight decision by storj after false decisions before.
And months later there is still no Solution (without zksync which in fact rolls of the fees to the SNO).
Why dont use storj the timeframes with low fees for the L1 Payouts?
The Community did not want a threshold, the Community suggested to use it.
We are in the same boat - if Storj Labs run out of money, SNO will not be rewarded.
The little delay can shift this to the future. Of course it’s not a solution.
The solution is L2 at the moment.
Too complicated at the moment. It needs redesign a whole payment system, include invoicing.
Needs a lot of efforts with almost zero results, the fees are too high anyway due the price of Ethereum and high gas price.
Implementing a support of L2 was much simpler and it’s double solution for the same problem - lower fees, remove delay. And as a bonus - you will decide when you want to withdraw, not we.
Really?
from the March payout figures: "
We sent 390 layer 1 transactions (e.g., 390 SNOs earned more than $42.90 in the last month without opting into zkSync) and 578 zkSync transactions (e.g., 578 SNOs opted into zkSync and earned more than 0). Thanks to all who have opted into zkSync so far!"
“There are 7170 unique wallet addresses that did not clear the threshold this month or did not opt in to zkSync.”
So your zksync payments represented about 8% of wallet addresses. Hardly a ringing endorsement Alexey.
This is solution for high transfer fees and enforced delays with Minimum Payout Threshold.
I did not say anything about representation, so, perhaps I missed something.
And I also know about representation from this thread, so I definitely missed something:
In none of the sources you cited Alexey is there a majority or even a significant percentage of people over 30% in favor of zksync. You indicated in a previous thread that one of the motivations was to increase trust in the project. I disagree with you that that is an outcome. I fail to see how transferring tokens to a wallet where they will be equally useless (unless one wants to speculate or buy storj services) matters in any way, shape or form. The best case you can make is that a percentage of the community is in favor of zksync. The reality as it stands is zksync is a solution which fixes issues for storj and not the majority of SNO’s and Storj has decided going forward that it will be the default solution it seems. Then later on the payouts to SNO’s looks like it will be further modified to make the net return to smaller players even less than it currently is. And those smaller players are doing exactly what storj said to do and use existing hardware. Storj seems to be playing both sides of the fence here. Wanting SNO’s to expand the amount of storage space they provide whilst at the same time covering their asses by saying “We told you not to spend any money!”
In none of my posts I said anything about majority of opting-in for zkSync.
And also I didn’t claim that zkSync will fix problems for majority of SNO.
Perhaps you confused me with someone else.
In the current situation with high transactions fee we forced to use a Minimum Payout Threshold. This introduces a delay in payment, with current prices - up to year for small SNOs.
We have had complains from SNOs about missed market opportunity because we calculates all earnings in USD and convert them to STORJ only in sent date.
We have had complains from SNOs about delay in payout and inability to withdraw funds when they want.
The zkSync can fix all these issues - you will receive your payout independently of Minimum Payout Threshold on L1, so there is no delays and also you have an opportunity to play with market and withdraw your funds when you want and not only when we sent you a payout.
I think you are also confusing me with someone else Alexey.
I support the payment threshold - with one exception. I think there should be a definable time limit to the maximum wait period. And believe me when I say I am fully aware that it might mean waiting a year for a payment on L1. Perhaps even longer.
I do NOT however support zksync.
I find the comment below a little disingenuous.
“We have had complaints from SNOs about missed market opportunity because we calculates all earnings in USD and convert them to STORJ only in sent date.”
Storj has said they don’t want to expose people to market risks but my having small amounts of storj in wallets - even L2 ones - that is precisely what you are doing. Because as i have asked in other posts - what can you do with storj on L2 with small amounts? 1. Buy storj services. 2. Be a speculator. 3.? Seems no other options currently.
By the community calculator itself the small SNO’s are only earning at best around $4 per TB. That doesn’t leave much room for fees now does it?
I’m ok with zksync being an opt-in option but I have huge issues if storj will make this the default because you are going to burn people.
When tokens arrives to your wallet - you can do with them what you want. The main purpose - is to buy storage service from Storj DCS.
If you decide to play with market - you can do that too.
The difference between delayed payout via L1 and instant payout via L2 is when USD converted to STORJ. And also who would pay the transfer/withdrawal fee on L1.
Where “what you want” is either buy Storj DCS or speculate. What i want is to preserve my value in USD and eventually get that value into fiat cost effectively. Can I do that with Zksync?
No, I can’t because I need to take on token risk whilst building up an amount to be able to deal with the fees to get it to the bank account.
Get explicit consent from the SNO that they consent to be exposed to token price fluctuations.
If SNO agrees - zksync is an option.
If SNO does not agree - payment to L1 and meeting minimum payment levels is the option.
Change the minimum payment levels such that after a period of time a minimum payment will be trigerred to the SNO. That period might be 6 months or 12 or something similar.
Some caveats to 2. - that the node has maintained connection and is is good standing when the payment is triggered and has been for the previous period of time and that amount to be paid is non trivial - like over $10.00. But after 6-12 months of work most SNO’s should have earnt more than this anyway. I’d need to look at the modal payments storj has each month to work out an actual level.
A payment structure like the above would facilitate moving money to fiat as well as give people the option to use zksync if that is for them - but require them to acknowledge the risks of speculation in the token.
for me the key is being about to do something with the tokens you actually receive and not watching some cents equivalent sitting in wallet you can’t actually use.
That’s already the case, get L1 payments directly to an exchange and instantly exchange for USDT… Point 1 done.
(I doubt storjlabs will force us to switch to zksync when there’s no supported exchange. If so… many are out).
