The problem with the current system for L1 is there is no certainty for SNO’s as to when they might be paid. Hence my modification of point 2.
I very much hope you are right but it isn’t what at least one senior person in the company is saying is it - and he hasn’t replied to clarify yet either.
Well he said the default would become zksync, which doesn’t imply that L1 won’t be an option anymore. But yeah, some clarification would be nice. And personally I’m also against forcing people into zksync by default but I can understand that they try to reduce tx-fees. But there’d need to be an incentive to switch.
My problem with it is how Storj has handled it. Storj is saying it is the fix to everything but until your node is sufficiently old and generating enough income it means forgetting converting any tokens to fiat - and I think that should be mentioned.
This post from Alexey is clearly wrong. [quote=“Alexey, post:553, topic:11064”]
When tokens arrives to your wallet - you can do with them what you want
[/quote]
You may not have seen the topics, but the community was really complaining loudly about payouts being held in USD and getting fewer tokens after a price jump. This was a real concern and it’s one that zkSync does fix. You now have a choice.
Storj is not going to be able to fix transaction fees on Ethereum on their own. But by adopting zkSync early they are part of the solution. It needs to be in actual use to see adoption at exchanges etc. Now this will take a bit of time, but there exists a possible future where you don’t have to worry about withdrawing to L1 at all.
I don’t like changing the default, but nowhere at all have they mentioned taking away the choice. I think a lot of your comments are basically invalidated by still having the choice. What remains is your suggestion to guarantee a payout after a certain amount of time. But I think any node operator sharing at least 1TB will see a payout within a year at least anyway. Furthermore, by your own words, this would force market risk on people who chose L1 (which is the only option to avoid that for the most part) at times when the transaction fees might still be too high for the node operator to move the tokens anyway. It would actually water down the L1 option for node operators to do this. They can still at any point switch to zkSync and get payout immediately. So guaranteeing payout after 6 or 12 months doesn’t give SNOs more choice, it actually takes a choice away.
I did see the responses and I saw both your and Alexey’s answers indicating it was done this way so as not to expose the SNO to market risks. How can you then not acknowledge not having a meaningful amount in a L2 account is also being exposed to market risks? You are playing both sides of the street here.
That is by no means certain and by storj’s own admission previous choices they have made regarding this have not worked out how they hoped. If things evolve over time by all means change the SNO conditions to deal with those financial conditions but I have a hard time with choices being made for a future that is non existent.
As I said in my own reply we would need data on storj’s modal payments to know the appropriate level the payment should be at. Yes, if the payment were too low then there would be some exposure there as well. I concede that.
But as I have now asked multiple times, what can they do with those payments? 1. Speculation 2. Buy Storj services. There are no third choices. I don’t have a use for storj DCS. I already work for an IT company remotely and if i need storage I just have to spin up what I need. My employer already has one of my servers. If I change my employment that might be different but that is the case right now. I also don’t want to be a speculator.
At a minimum it gives certainty in terms of a schedule and as for removing choice that depends on the level of payment and fees. Whilst fees might not be able to be changed the threshold for the guarantee can - but setting that depends on data.
No, I’m not. Holding the payout for everyone in Storj would force market risk on SNOs. Providing both held payments in USD for L1 payments as well as zkSync payments gives SNOs the option to choose value being held in USD (L1) or in Storj (zkSync). You have the choice. That’s the point I’m making now. And it doesn’t conflict with me objecting to forcing market risks earlier.
It’s always a bit of a gamble. But it’s not one that happened in a vacuum. Ethereum is quickly moving towards rollup solutions being the norm. There is very active development happening around this all over the place. Solutions like these will be the future for ethereum. But sure, it does represent a bit of a risk. That said, it would be fairly trivial for Storj Labs to implement other similar payout solutions later if something else gets wider adoption. So helping push zkSync to help move it along is a fairly harmless move that might actually move things forward.
Not really. Without mentioning any absolute numbers, would you want to move your Storj if it would cost 25% or more of what it’s worth to do that? Forcing a payout in those situations would convert USD to Storj at times when it isn’t reasonable to trade them for USD. That option was already there for the SNO with zkSync, but the guaranteed payout would force that on them.
There are though… stick with L1 payments.
It depends actually. Remember for one thing my daily currency is not USD. So if either Roubles or AUD were very low compared to USD it may well be worth taking the hit. It also depends on the state of the project. If you got the slightest hint that storj was folding would you not want to convert any holdings to something else?
I have (personally) stuck with L1 payments and will do so for as long as they remain available.
I’m talking about third options for zksync. As per Alexey’s comment that quote=“Alexey, post:553, topic:11064”]
When tokens arrives to your wallet - you can do with them what you want
[/quote]
Clearly you can’t do whatever you want with tokens in a L2 zksync wallet.
I’m ok with having the choice. But it should be understood that holding amounts in L2 wallets is ALSO a market risk - particularly when the cost to move them exceeds their value and that is currently not acknowledged
Sure. And your reasons might be different to others. So when you want the payout after all, switch to zkSync. You can switch back after if you want.
Yeah, but that doesn’t exist in isolation. You’re talking about an option that is served by the alternative. If you want that third option you shouldn’t choose zkSync.
I will refrain from speaking for @Alexey as I don’t know what he was referring to specifically. But nobody is hiding the fact that holding storj means taking on market risks. And with zkSync you have the choice when to move your tokens. But of course you still need to take transaction costs into account.
Unless the fundamentals of zksync change I won’t be using that particular option - ever.
Understandable about Alexey. The difference of course with L2 being that the SNO is paying all the movement costs. I think determining actions where the costs are lower than the value of the token are problematic as the actual choice depends on many factors as we have already discussed but I think one thing is for sure - it makes no sense to move tokens where the costs exceed or equal the value of the tokens. Thank you for at least talking @BrightSilence.
This is kind of a misconception. You can transfer from zkSync to any L1 account for similar costs of a normal L1 to L1 token transfer. It is negligibly more expensive. The only difference would be if you use an exchange L1 address for payouts. But if you use your own wallet, you pay only for the transaction to move tokens elsewhere, similar to L1.
Same to you. These are useful discussions to have and I always appreciate when people have reasonable discussions without resorting to just blaming everyone else.
I second that. I don’t understand why transfers cannot be made continuously.
Well, I think you know this, since it has been posted several times. They can be made continuously, it’s just a matter of prioritizing development efforts. It would require an entire rewrite of the payout process and that is not being given priority at the moment.
I wold prefer to withdraw my money when i need it, not every month payout.
then i can monitor myself that transfer fee wold be good. For me it is no difference i need pay for withdraw or not, as after if it payment I need to move them to binance and pay for this transaction.
When i withdraw, I can chose time with best ratio for me.
Where did they state that?
I have read recently that SNO initiated transfers would require that as the current mechanism are batch payouts.
So what keeps them to check Gas prices every day even after the first half of a month has passed and run the batch over and over again? To me running batches more often does not sound like it should require a whole rewrite.
Would zkSync be an option for you then? Withdrawing to an exchange is between 2% and 44% more expensive depending on the scenario (2% if you transfer only part of the balance, 44% if you transfer the entire balance), but you do get to choose when it happens and Storj Labs saves the vast majority of costs when they only pay for zkSync transactions.
Dips in gas prices are usually pretty short. The batch process is likely not built to deal with payouts already been made. You’d need to constantly monitor costs and make it start and stop. All of that requires development effort. It seems logical that the same argument applies.
if i withdraw and pay transaction fee myself, dont want to mess with zkSync at all.
Well you could see zkSync as the place where you do the withdrawal and paying of the transaction fee yourself. It’s basically Storj outsourcing that feature, with the added benefit that the tokens are actually already under your control once they are in the zkSync wallet.
It is a little more expensive. So that might be a reason why you wouldn’t want to use zkSync. Is there anything else? Because from what I can tell, other than the cost, it basically functions like what you are asking for.
just wondering… is there anyway that we could see in total how much has been accumulated for all the nodes? or this way we could see how much we have with storj before the next payout.
something like tracking wallet address like how mining works?
