This is factually incorrect, as it is already possible right now to withdraw tokens from L2 zkSync addresses to any L1 address, even one that is an exchange deposit address. It may not be currently less expensive than doing the same with a payout received on L1, however, it is possible, and quite easy if you use numio wallet.
We are very sorry that our dev team cannot implement changes required for accepting L2 payments on the customer side instantaneously. I think it was already mentioned before on another thread that our team is currently in the process of completely reworking the way we will accept STORJ payments from customers to pay for Storj DCS, as we are aware that CoinPayments is not a satisfactory solution. Refactoring our billing is a mayor undertaking and will take time to implement.
On the other hand, there was no reason to wait with implementing the option to receive payouts via zkSync on L2, as in any case, we had to institute the payout threshold on L1 due to the high gas fees and wanted to give SNOs an alternative to continue receiving their payouts every month rather than potentially waiting months for their accumulated payouts to exceed the payout threshold.
iām very sure one can send erc20 tokens directly into cardano and get cardano based erc20 equivalent storj tokens, so there would be no issue in that regard, aside from iām unsure if it can be reversed.
i donāt understand the legal stuff one needs to deal with for this kind of stuff, but afaik the cardano team made it this way to basically leech off the eth ecosystem, making it super easy for companies and people to utilize their solution.
In the initial statements to SNOās when zksync was deployed was this disclosed as an issue? I donāt think it was. So even if you couldnāt fix the issue āinstantaneouslyā it could still be acknowledged and a roadmap published as to what would be needed to resolve it.
You have very interesting definitions of āinstantā on the SNO side where the actual time period is several months long.
Announcements concerning SNOs do not require statements about billing on the customer side. I made no statements about the length of the time it took us to implement L2 payouts to SNOs.
So, this statement was made by @john back on May 13th.
"What weāre committed to is ensuring that is is economically rewarding and viable to operate a storage node for the long term.
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."
Yet, what I am actually hearing at the moment is āIt isnāt our responsibility to do blahā Storj accepting L2 payments from SNOās is part of ensuring the economic viability of operators. Iām very sorry you donāt see it that way.
i would tend to agree with @BrightSilence, the storj point system seems like a good ideaā¦ ofc if that is possible, sounds like StorjLabs might have a pretty strict agreement with their payment processor or whatever.
but having a layer before transfers hits crypto, ofc with that comes security implications, maybe even more than making the storj token itās own blockchainā¦ wasnāt that also on the board at one timeā¦ ofc that might be more trouble than its worthā¦ because of the whole not on exchanges thing, but storj is on exchangesā¦ so ā¦ well i duno
however iāve been on the forum for 18 months and this have been an on going debate for as long as i can remember, and the problem only seems to be getting worse by each month.
the problem is ETH economics, the fees are to high, zksync makes transfers cheaper but one still have to pay fees when going back to L1, so the fees are just moved from StorjLabs to the SNOās, which is sort of fineā¦
but then you have those SNOās that donāt want L2 and doesnāt have a decent amount of data, when they donāt get paid in a year, they justly consider the whole Storj project a scam and thats bad PRā¦
i think what we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg of the brewing discontent over the payment, and sure some get paidā¦ but when it comes to brands and marketing.
the quantity of people complaining is what most will hear rather than the quality of what those that do get paid says.
itās simply unacceptable that people can spend a year to get paid, fix it or suffer the long term effects.
but hey all good for me because iām not going anywhere and less SNOās and more Quitting nodes is just more ingress.
Is there not an easy solution here. Stop the onboarding of new nodes until demand requires it. We all hopefully get paid more because data is shared between fewer people. Where as @SGC said newer nodes will quit because of not having earnāt any money but also having a negative opinion of Storj as a project. I class myself as a fairly old timer having been involved since v2 and get paid reasonably regular but i understand the frustration of node operators. Iām not a believer of the L2 solution as i donāt think people should pay for access to their payment. I donāt do it in my regular job.
There is no need to artificially limit the growing, the economics will work better.
See
So, there would be only long running nodes and they mostly will be run by Operators who doesnāt concerned regarding covering bills, because if you heard us - you will use the HW which will be online anyway, with Storj or without, so all costs already covered and any earnings will be a pure profit.
Of course you can take a risk to invest in HW, but there is no guarantee to cover your bills, since the service is used by real people and thus there is no predictable income.
I just converted my nodes to zkSync payments, although as a long-term operator, I could pass the fee thresholds to be paid on L1, even at 10%. With all the development going on in zkSync, it looks like itāll become a full-fledged L2 solution in short order with zkSync 2.0 and zkEVM. As @Alexey mentioned, the just recently demoed a port of UniSwap v2 and did an AMA on reddit about where they see the project going.
Pretty soon weāll see bridges between zkSync and other L2s, with ways to bridge back to fiat, all with much lower fees than L1.
I think the Storj team chose the right L2 to build this payment solution with for SNOs and Iāll be happy with a 10% bonus to continue receiving payments in zkSync.
But you spend time in zksync - in my opinion a broken solution for the SNOs
But I wont complain again and again about the same thing, which is discussed a lot and where unfortunately stroj set the SNOs before accomplished facts and determines the payout terms at the expensive of the SNOs.
Im a long time SNOs, I love the Idea and the Project and I will let run my Nodes but I cant get it how the project can harm itself ever end ever again with such decisions.
We spent time to implement an universal support of wallet features. Now we are able to split payouts by wallet features and send them separatelly.
We did not spent time to implement integration of ERC20 tokens to zkSync, this was done by Matter Labs.
So, if your favorite method can accept ERC20 tokens and can distribute them with low fee to the participants, it can be added as a supported feature.
There are two supported wallet features at the moment:
Ethereum (L1) (default), you will pay fee in ETH to send tokens from L1 address to another L1 address;
zkSync (L2), you will pay almost the same fee as in L1 but in STORJ tokens to withdraw tokens from L2 to L1 address.
zkSync allows you to receive payout every month, when the L1 will allow you to receive payout only when it will be in 4 times greater than fee to transfer it.
The zkSync allows you to decide when you want to withdraw your tokens, not wait for payout until you would have enough balance as in L1.
In both methods you will pay fee. I do not see how itās broken.
The payout terms are defined in the Node Operator Terms & Conditions and have not changed - payout is calculated in USD and sent to SNO in STORJ tokens at exchange rate on date of sending.
