Tines,sno behavior and network change over time. Maybe the opinions at storj also?
Just another idea would be a certain amount held for your amount current data stored.
So for example: $3 per TB.
The pros:
- It doesn’t matter whether you incubate your drive or something.
- It’s really a fixed $/TB of repair, which would be the case at the point of failure.
- You don’t incentive people with smaller nodes, compared to those with bigger nodes. Because held amount in the end is the same for 2x6TB node vs 1x12TB node when filled to the rim.
The cons:
- It probably means that you won’t earn for at least the first two months a dime; this may also be true, at the moment you increase the size of your storage node.
For example if you have 1TB allocated, you will not be paid out till there’s $3 held if there’s also 1TB stored.
Since my nodes grow about 300-500GB/month, this would mean:
- 1m: 300GB, 0.15TB average over the month stored: 0.15* $1.5 =$ 0.23 earned, 0.3*$3=$0.9 should be held > $0.23 is being held, no payout.
- 2m: 600GB, 0.45TB average over the month stored: 0.451.5=$0.68 earned, 0.6$3=$1.8 should be held > $0.25+$0.68=$0.91 is being held, no payout.
- 3m: 900GB, 0.75TB average over the month stored: 0.751.5=$1,13 earned, 0.9$3=$2.7 should be held > $0.91+$1,13=$2.04 is being held, no payout.
- 4m: 1000GB, 0.97TB average over the month stored: 0.971.5=$1,45 earned, 1$3=$3 should be held > $2.04+$1.45=$3.49, of wich $3 is being held and $0.49 is being paid out.
I think it can be not from amount you allocate but from amount you have data. with example 3$ pet tb, if after first month you have 100gb that mean held amount will be 0.3$ from full payout.
1 Like
That’s exactly what I meant, see the example. Because allocation can be modified by the SNO, while stored data isn’t supposed to (and if, you’re going to be DQ’ed).
1 Like
Exactly, I’m thinking the same way.
1 Like
Only the whole topic, just create it the Storage Node feature requests - voting - Storj Community Forum (official)
You can also add a polling to the specific post, use a Build Poll feature under the gear icon in the message composer when you compose your post.
However, @SGC is correct, you need to formulate it as more clear as possible to promote the idea.
If you have additions, you may edit your initial post and update it, please note - the time frame for editing is limited.
If you want to create an another idea, the current one should be closed to release votes (forum members have a limited credit of votes).
Perhaps it’s time to revisit this topic. The new data flow and need for new nodes will make the held amount problem a very hot topic soon.
So… Storj, how are you planning to tune the held amount?
SNOs, what do you think?
Assuming an extrem situation that some months ago whould had appear plain bogus, like you start a node and after the vetting month, you fill 20TB in the first 2 months or less, and you watch your huge held amount with greed in your eyes knowing that you can’t touch it, what should change to the present held amount scheme?
Many SNO plan to upgrade with storagenode earnings. If those money are held by Storj and your node is filled, you just have to use your own money to upgrade. How do you feel about that?
1 Like
Other thing is you only get half of it back.
With new nodes receiving so much data, this can be a nice sum. And what we learned repair costs are considered low with the TTL that is set for the data.
If the sum that is held even after month 15 is high, this is an incentive to gracefully exit. Nodes leaving is not the best interest of Storj.
So maybe the periods must be shortened and percentage held reduced. Or the return after month 15 increased.
Get rid of the holdback amounts/period. Repairs are a cost of doing business for Storj: and can be priced in the the customer/SNO $/TB/m amounts. Plus getting rid of the holdback system simplifies things.
If that means SNOs get a lower $/TB/m, fine. But I imagine as profitability improves the company could absorb those repair costs at existing price levels.
1 Like
It is not just matter of repair cost, the system is meant to be an incentive for node operators to stay long term and finish with a graceful exit instead of just quitting.
2 Likes
The incentive to “stay long term”… is you pay them every month. Want more payments? Stay more time 
. No additional incentive is needed: the holdback system adds complexity for almost no improvement in retention.
2 Likes
They do that. But you receive only 25% at the beginning and 100% after month 10 or so. And they return the withheld amount if you stay even longer.
I think it is fairer than a reduced payout rate for starters without withholding.
1 Like
Then it needs to be tweaked in some way. Today my oldest node with 15TB of data before tests started has about $15 held. What kind of incentive is that? If I need space back I’ll nuke the node with rm -rf. Who will be waiting a month for additional $15?
But I also remember the data is unpaid following start of graceful exist. So why would anyone do graceful exist just based on the “incentives”.
Properly done there shall be some sort of security deposit in escrow that earns interest. But inguess something like that was tried in previous version of storj and did not work for other reasons.
Ether way, today held amounts are too insignificant to drive any decisions, and therefore it’s just a complicated noise storj has to keep track of.
4 Likes
I believe it’s still paid, while it is stored on your node and not deleted by the customers. Also the egress is paid too, as an egress repair and the audit traffic.
this is actually the held amount, but you do not need to deposit it to be able to start and you wouldn’t earns interest from it. You would receive 50% back when the node is 16 months old.
Good to know. I remembered reading otherwise but can’t find now. Perhaps I’ve confused this with something else.
I understand that, my point was that the final amount that ends up held after 16 months is vastly insufficient incentive for exiting gracefully: node earns more per month than the held amount by then. I won’t bother graceful exiting for $15, but I will for $300. I don’t know what changes are needed but it seems in current form it’s just overhead in accounting that does not actually drive any behavior.
1 Like
The held amount on my nodes is trivial, roughly equal to one months current payment.
For held amount to matter, it should be continuous; maybe 10% every month. Then returned after a period of time has elapsed, one year for example.
So storj would hold 10% of my earnings for the past 12 months and would have returned to me what they held 13 months ago.
2 Likes