Node operator-only offer as means of attracing more nodes

[Alexey]

@jammerdan

But only if the open amount is lower than the balance/earnings.

Why? Any restriction against the existing flow is an additional expensive spend of the developer’s time. Not needed. We can reuse the existing flow.
I’m also not sure that it would be easy to implement suggested restrictions (costs will be higher, than use the current system).

@jammerdan

I am talking about the opposite case we well, when the earnings are higher than the amount to pay.

Then the invoice will be covered and the remaining amount will be used in the next invoice. So, why?

@New Minimum Usage Fee Starting July 1

It’s not that the situation is desperate, it’s the fact that storj always acts as if the sky will fall on our heads in the next couple of hours

ok, four months of notification ahead is a couple of hours for some, got it.
Well, I think nobody can help with this.

@BrightSilence

There are estimates that 70-90% of allotted storage in paid cloud accounts goes unused. Probably partially due to how tiers are structured, so it might be a little lower with this system, but considering all overhead is space you can sell to paying customers, this still seems like a huge win.

here is a nuance. Consumer apps usually force you to pay for the fully allotted storage, even if you use 10% of it. This is the way, how to have a profit, of course. In the case of Storj you are paying only for what you are using (if the usage is more or equal than a minimum billing amount or if you pay with STORJ).
Do you suggest also to have a pre-paid for the full allotted storage and egress despite the actual usage? We have it too, it’s called RCS (Reserved Capacity Storage) and can be negotiated with Sales.