I guess now we found the reason why they keep the coin alive… 
okay so there is 10% bonus when topping up Storj’s storage with Storj token.
A SNO could potentially automatically get that 10% of his earnings as an storage account balance.
Why?
- to strengthen relation, abrupt exit prevention
- deeper incentives than only money for being a SNO.
- 10% kinda already offered, no additional costs for Storj inc.
in that way a SNO who earns like $100 montly would get a $10 for the account.
That would allow smooth and carefree storage of some backups.
Sure an SNO i able to pay for it from his earnings, as Alex noticed.
But i would say no thanks, i rather pay my energy bills.
Sooner of later there will be demand for rise, because of inflation and energy bills rise, so its just another way, more smooth for providing value for SNOs. Storj inc. could just offer 10% earnings in storage service. Just an possibility i view as great value for me, as i would be glad to finally secure a careless backup provider for my needs, that i can worry not, any more, as long i provide the service to it.
As the saying goes — money don’t smell. It does not matter which dollar comes from where or goes to which payment — job, or storagnde, or storage or power provider etc.
There is absolutely no benefit in entangling two independent activities. I have not seen a single benefit that cannot be resolved by currency. Currency give you flexibility. Entangling services reduces flexibility.
You can never get care free backup - companies and service rise and fall and if you want your data outlive all that you need to be proactive about it.
In this light entangling your storage service with storage providing activity is 100% net negative.
Also this talk of 10% — you all understand it’s a gimmick right? No decision are ever made on a service issuing you a 10% discount, let alone the one you have to jump thought hoops to receive.
1 Like
okay then!
then i will 100% advocate for rising payment in just storj tokens,
when the next outbreak of strike erupts, no problem for me.
I strongly advocate reducing payments, because
- surplus of nodes exists: this on its own is a sufficient evidence that payments are too high.
- It’s still “profitable” to run nodes — albeit that may be a vocal minority.
- This attracts operators with the wrong mindset that expect to earn money on this and are volatile to the point of irrationality of thinking about:
Reducing payouts forces exit of such marginal operators first. Win-win.
If I were storj: I would immediately ban any nodes whose operators even hinted at possibility of organized network disruption and prevent them from ever joining the network in perpetuity, let alone for actually attempting to organize. Just because.
I don’t care about node payments.
That is putting the cart before the horse.
Storj problem is not that there are too many nodes.
The problem is that there is no customer.
Which in return is because it is not an attractive product. If making the product more attractive in return results in reduced payments, that is fine.
But I would not start there. That is putting the cart before the horse.
2 Likes
This might be risky considering what is happening with supply of equipment, inflation and energy prices.
The prices of hard drives will go up even more I think, considering for example WD manufacturing capacity is sold out for the whole 2026 (89% of revenue is datacenters, only 5 is consumer market), and with hyperscalers they have long term contracts till 2028, they are saying.
Second hand hard drive market is also either non-existent here at the moment, or the prices are insane.
Thus if a drive will fail, for some it will be cheaper to just kill the node and reduce the array, than to buy a replacement.
Should the payouts go down even more, and drive prices up, then for some it will be more reasonable to gracefully exit the network, sell the hardware and invest to something else.
And then you are risking centralization to countries where energy, equipment and labor prices prices are three times cheaper. And there are multiple storage projects that are pretty much centralized in one such country exactly because of these reasons.
1 Like
They don’t have to change anything. Pricing was nudged in their favor (as were RS ratios) and they’re still increasing stored customer data. Combine that with what we heard about planned profitability this year… it sounds like they can “just keep doing what they’re doing” and be a success.
I’m hoping a lot of companies look at the cost of buying more local storage this year… and simply decide to rent some S3 space for now (if projects allow)… and reevaluate in 2027. Good for Storj, good for SNOs!
1 Like
Was again thinking of this proposal. Instead of fixing specific rates in USD, they should be defined relative to node payouts. So, e.g., storage of one segment per month should cost the equivalent of a node payout for storing 133 MB of data for a month.
So, it’s six votes. Not much. The post is still up, can be voted for, so maybe in future there will be more. At this point though we can conclude that the interest for this kind of offer is just not there yet.
Why only one button for thums up? Why not thumbs down too? This shows only the crowed that approves an ideea, and lets out the crowed that disapproves it. Maybe the second is bigger.
1 Like
Then the post should have a voting by “build a poll” feature. Not sure, that it can be inserted to the old post.
1 Like
- Pros
- Cons
0
voters
1 Like
Because that’s what’s enough for initial stage product discovery. This is not democracy, this is just basic sounding whether there’s at least a minimal interest.
2 Likes
The poll makes sense. It seems that node operators know how to store their data more cheaply than Storj can offer. They’re probably more interested in earning money than in storing data.
7 Likes