You make a great point. 20% of nodes could leave… and the network would only feel a bump in repair traffic: but be fine. And yeah we keep getting more capacity. It would be a poor business decision to spend time/money on something you already have too much of.
Better to focus on adding the features that will attract the next customer. SNOs are “good enough” for now.
You know perfectly well that your “translation” is incorrect. We value operators and the service they provide. Changing the payment system was never on the backlog. We simply cannot do this for a number of reasons, a large part of which are regulatory requirements. However, I did convey the wishes of you three to the team. I haven’t seen any interest in changing the payment system yet. If this changes, I or the team will let you know.
From here: https://static.storj.io/storjv3.pdf, also already quoted above.
Although the Storj network is payment agnostic and the protocol does not require a
specific payment type, the network assumes the Ethereum-based STORJ token as the
default mechanism for payment. While we intend for the STORJ token to be the primary
form of payment, in the future other alternate payment types could be implemented,
including Bitcoin, Ether, credit or debit card, ACH transfer, or even physical transfer of live
goats.
Which regulatory requirement specifically prevents Storj from supporting more than one operator payout method, let alone requires conversion through the token to pay operators their USD-denominated earnings? Please point me to one. This is not a rhetorical question; I would like to see it.
To be clear: I’m not saying “abolish the token”. I can see how this could be problematic from regulatory perspective.
Instead, I’m saying: add more payment methods. Keep the token for customers who want it. Keep it for operators who enjoy exchange fees, liquidity risk, delistings, and extra tax paperwork. Just stop forcing everyone else through it while calling it a requirement.
Customers already have payment choice today, for the obvious reason: forcing customers through the token would kill adoption. Operators are denied the same choice because Storj can get away with it.
Apparently “interest” means internal interest, not operator interest. Operator interest is right here, in this thread, repeatedly stated, with concrete failure modes: volatility, fees, exchange friction, delistings, and payouts landing below the USD amount shown in the dashboard.
Operators are interested; Storj is not, that’s the core of the issue here.
I got that three operators are interested in other payment options and this interest is shared with the team. If there would be a new information, I will share it.
I don’t want any change in how operators are paid.
As a genuine multi-node operator who has been here almost since the very beginning of this idea and service, I am perfectly fine with how things work here and with the way I get paid.
Many people here complain mostly about payouts. What they do not realize, however, is that there is also a silent majority (people who are not that into discussions) who are completely fine with the current system. And when someone who is unhappy decides to leave, those of us who are quieter will gladly step in and fill the space they leave behind.
So that is mostly how things are. And as the saying goes: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
Please do not get me wrong, because there certainly could be much better and fairer ways for us node operators to be paid. I would appreciate that myself as well. But the moment you start going down that road, you suddenly run into a million legislative and bureaucratic steps that would come with it.
And that is not even mentioning the fact that, if we were talking about fiat, every country could have entirely different requirements or legislation. Anyone who has ever done business with an international reach probably knows what I am talking about.
So I do not blame the team in the slightest for being cautious about such a step. The average user often sees this far too simplistically.
Thanks to the team for fantastic service, which I have been supporting for years, not only as a node operator but also as a satisfied customer.
*Anyway, I have dusted off my account a little again, and now it is time to disappear back into the shadows and continue happily supporting this project.
BTW: Whenever the situation allows me to, I am also one of those who pay with tokens.*
This is a pile of conflations, fallacies, and corporate deference. And you are not even an employee.
In no particular oder:
But no, of course, thank you for fantastic service, it’s already paragon of engineering and design, nothing to be imroved, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise.
+1 !
It is pretty slick: you don’t really have to do anything. If something breaks you get an email. Other than that some tokens arrive like magic every month. Easy! And if it ever starts to feel boring, somebody will always be trying to start something in the forum 
This is really wonderful for you. Then there is nothing that needs to be improved for you. Everything can stay exactly how it is and nobody wants to take that away from you.
How can you say that? Look, I simply do not care at all if my view is a majority view or not. If you or any majority is fine with the current system there is nothing for you to complain about and I am fine with your view as well.
You got it. 
I could see that some countries could be hard to deal with currently, e.g. Russia, Iran and others. For most parts of the world this should be a non issue. As you are saying, Storj is not the only company that has to deal with international payments. And for some reason, other companies can handle that without creating their own token. There are even global mass payment providers who will handle everything for you:
But we are not talking just about fiat. We are also talking about other cryptocurrencies, e.g. stablecoins if crypto is a must. Even other cryptos would be better suited than the STORJ token that is failing.
So what exactly prevents Storj from a regulatory side instead of buying STORJ token to send to their operators to buy USDC, ETH or DOGE to send to their operators? Please name facts and links that support such claims.
It always comes across like something like that. Same with the sanctions imposed on Russians. I wonder how these are getting enforced with payment through the STORJ token.
Should I copy the whole thread? We’ve been talking about this for ages.
TL;DR: Without taking into account regulatory issues (which I’m not an expert on), it’s too expensive. If you really need fiat payments and are willing to accept a significant reduction in payments (or pay the fee yourself for keeping of your account on the payment provider) plus a ton of paperwork (which you’ll likely pay for upfront), then I can offer this to the team as a way to cut costs. Because all alternatives involve increased costs, both in terms of money and the time of everyone in the company.
No. The existing answers do not answer the question. If the answer is “we have reasons we cannot discuss,” fine. Say that.
Cheap alternatives were already mentioned. Repeating “too expensive” without addressing them is not an answer.
Operators are already accepting payment reduction through token volatility, exchange fees, withdrawal fees, delistings, and conversion friction. The difference is that those costs are currently pushed onto operators and kept outside Storj’s accounting.
Delivering compensation in a usable form is a normal cost of doing business. Calling that cost “too expensive” just means the current system is cheaper for Storj because operators absorb the mess.
What paperwork applies to fiat payouts that does not apply to token payouts?
Tokens transfer value. Sanctions, tax, and international compliance do not disappear because the value is routed through STORJ first. If anything, that makes the compliance argument stranger, not stronger.
Also this:
…misstates the request. Customers already get payment choice because forcing customers through STORJ would be commercial suicide. Operators do not get payment choice because Storj can still get away with denying it.
The request is payout choice. Fiat is one possible method. Stablecoins or other better-supported crypto options would already be less stupid than forcing everyone through STORJ token liquidity.
Problem is not crypto. Problem is volatility. For which operators pay, because storj does not want to, and currently can afford not to.
I understand Storj is now stuck with the token and has to keep it on life support for regulatory and optics reasons. I also understand that if operators are no longer force-fed through this captive-audience loop, there may be very little practical reason left for the token to exist.
Maybe that is the answer: let it become irrelevant, let exchanges delist it if that is where the market goes, and pay operators in something that behaves like actual money.
And that, I suspect, is the real sensitivity here. Admitting operator payouts would be better without the token also acknowledges the token is mostly a burden, not utility, for the one group still forced to touch it. Optional payout methods would make that obvious immediately.
I suspect this is the actual “regulatory issue” being spoken around: Storj cannot openly say that operator choice would make the token irrelevant, because saying that would affect its market.
Awkward, after years of saying the token “powers” the network, whatever that meant.
The problem is that this requires research. I would like to suggest that you conduct one and provide a full cost estimate for changing the current payment system to another, including forecasting, planning, legal and regulatory compliance costs in 124 countries, as well as annual fees for maintaining this system for tens of thousands of operators worldwide.
This is a part of the deal:
Whitepaper, 4.16 Payments:
But we don’t charge a commission for transactions with SNO, even if it was offered. Instead, we pay that commission ourselves. Do you think this is enough for:
?
What I mean is that the costs of changing an already established payment system, implemented (meaning paid for) after research and addressing regulatory issues long before you agreed to it, are far greater than the ongoing costs of maintaining it, even accounting for volatility.
Changing a payment system that has been proposed and accepted requires a multitude of conditions and efforts, not just the contractor’s willingness. I believe this change could be initiated by the contractor individually (I’m not 100% sure, as I don’t understand US law). The only question is who will pay for it and how much it will cost to implement and maintain.
According to my estimates, this system is expensive. I included the cost of research, provider comparisons (not all of them), regulatory, implementation, and maintenance costs (roughly, of course).
The “cheap alternatives” cited don’t include these costs, but in reality, there’s a lot of fine print, and the final costs will be high. If you’re so sure it’s cheaper, do your own research and publish it. Simply saying “here are some cheaper alternatives” is worthless. If you want my numbers, give me yours. I’ll pass them on to the team, and maybe we can convince them it’s worth the effort.
Expanding from fiat to support stablecoins or other cryptocurrencies will only increase research costs, including even more stringent regulatory issues, and that’s not even taking into account that we already have our own token. Accepting payments is much simpler (except for stablecoins, which raise numerous questions from regulators in many countries, hence the stricter regulations bordering on prohibition).
I also believe that the started initiative on https://storjtoken.com/ can stabilize the token and this can solve the volatile issue.
@Alexey you mentioned that you are not familiar with any US law with regards to international payments, yet you keep suggesting that implementing a different form of payment (ie already issued stablecoins such as USDC) have (in your own words) “even more stringent regulatory issues”. They don’t. The people in many similar threads (including myself) have already given you the answers (ie already done the research that you ask for):
Stablecoins don’t have any additional burden in order to be used. You aren’t going to issue the stablecoin, you are going to use an already established stablecoin (ie USDC). Any regulation that has anything to do with stablecoins doesn’t apply to you (Storj) as a user of that token. It’s simply just another token.
Since stablecoins aren’t recognized in any country as “actual money”, the exact same rules apply to them as they do to the Storj token. It’s simply just another token.
International payments already fall under the AML/reporting rules that Storj already follows: >$600/year = form you aren’t a US resident, the token’s USD value is recorded along with a receiver wallet and timestamp, and if the payment is to a sanctioned entity/country it can’t be done.
Yes, because the problem does not go away. It’s repeating itself with every payout cycle.
It would be great if you bring the Storj experts on regulations and payouts onto this thread to discuss on a factual basis and not on assumptions.
Now we are starting to talk seriously it seems.
First of all I can also only repeat what I have stated before.
Storj needs to have a look at companies like:
https://www.thunes.com/solutions/pay-to-banks/
Global Payouts & Payout Automation - Trolley
Mass Payments Solution: Pay Global Partners & Suppliers | Tipalti
Transfers — Payouts.com
CashXChain | CashXChain
What they offer and what they are dealing with is exactly what you are talking about: Payments, regulations, compliance and tax at a global scale. No need to invent the wheel multiple times.
Yes I would be fine to cover payout costs directly to my bank accounts to a certain extent. However real costs must be evaluated first. Storj can’t simply state oh it would cost like $30 per transfer without evaluating what alternatives are there that offer competitive and maybe cheaper ways to conduct payouts.
You have stated in the past:
But there are alternatives even to Swift, correct?
Like the ones above e.g. from their publically accessible pricing:
Trolley Pricing
https://pricing.payouts.com/
As stated before Wise is also an alternative:
Wise Account Fees for Receiving & Adding Money
Receiving domestic payments (non-Swift / non-wire) Receive AUD, CAD, CAD, EUR, GBP, HUF, NZD, PHP, SGD, USD Free Receiving USD wire and Swift payments 6.11 USD
How do these providers bypass Swift and offer local pay-ins and payouts at competetive rates or even free?
From AI:
How Wise Bypasses SWIFT
- Local Bank Network: Wise maintains numerous local bank accounts worldwide. When you send money, you are actually paying into a local Wise account in your country, and they pay the recipient from a local Wise account in the destination country.
- The “Netting” System: If Person A in the UK wants to send £100 to Europe, and Person B in Europe wants to send money to the UK, Wise matches these transfers. The £100 never leaves the UK; it simply goes to Person B’s recipient, and the Euro equivalent goes to Person A’s recipient.
- Direct-to-Account: In many regions, Wise links directly to local, real-time payment systems (like ACH in the US, Faster Payments in the UK, or SEPA in Europe)
Plus the companies I have mentioned offer streamlined features for vendor management, compliance checks, tax reporting and multiple payout options (including e.g. crypto, credit card, gift card, Paypal, cheques and more) and vendor self service, e.g. see here: Vendor Portal: Manage Vendor Payouts Easily | Payouts.com
I am really (again) strongly suggesting to take the demos and tours the mentioned providers offer, and have a look how this could look like, e.g. here:
These companies achieve what Storj wanted to achieve with its token but they are more versatile and flexible regarding their payouts.
But even without such a platform Storj could achieve something similar with local banks and local payouts to bank accounts. 1 single SEPA bank account would cover the entire SEPA region and a large percentage of node operators. 1 single bank account in the US should cover the entire US region without the need to use Swift to transfer money for every single transaction and would cover another large percentage of SNOs. Storj would only have to fund these accounts once per month and send the payouts as local transfers to SNOs bank accounts. In the SEPA region this is at low cost and can be done in realtime.
I mean, why not something like this:
--operator.wallet-features=“iban”
-e WALLET=“DEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
But I agree that some sort of administrative burden would probably come with that as it probably would require the names of the account holders as well but I am not sure about that.
To focus on where the STORJ token fails:
To some extent at least with other cryptocurrencies some of that could be mitigated and improve the payout experience for SNOs. Other cryptos are far more popular therefore not prone to be delisted from exchanges and have enough liquidity. Native cryptos do not require additional cryptos to send it. Larger cryptos like ETH, DOGE and whatever are far more widespread, can be exchanged and also used almost everywhere today. From my SNO perspective the STORJ token fails in all of these categories as a good payment choice. It is a toy for speculators not a serious payout mechanism what it usually meant to be and its adoption is limited. Recent events like the recent delisting from Kriptomat are fueling that impression.
So to sum it up: Options and alternatives to the current payout way do exist for each and everything.
This thread is shared with the team, but I don’t have anything to share. I believe the team is reading, because I got a response, that this thread is acknowledged.
Thank you. 
Maybe also worth an additional thought on the payment processors that I have mentioned:
For the Diol marketplace you need a way to handle payouts unless you want to force everyone into using (proprietary) tokens, which is obviously a bad idea for improving adoption.
With a provider for global mass payments, each participant on the Diol marketplace would be able to choose how they want to pay and how they want to get paid.
There should be a poll sent by email to all SNO.
Do you want to be paid in Storj?
Do you want to be paid in stablecoins?
Which stablecoins can you accept?
After this, Storj Team will have a much clear picture of what the operators want.
Second, there should be a second usecase for the token, to not screw the holders.
I actually wonder if Storj would be scrambling that hard to benchmark the network/make node software faster for that mystery customer two years ago if there was, let say, 10× the nodes due to attracting operators not willing to deal with the token.
We’ve added about 5000 nodes in the last year… even with the complaints here (and some ‘Goodbye’ posts). It doesn’t seem like a poll would be worthwhile… if the token payouts (that have been running almost a decade at this point) are working well.
Storj doesn’t need more nodes. Or even for fewer to leave. They’ve always had more capacity than the market wanted to buy.
And even if a poll clearly told Storj that the majority of SNOs are OK with token payouts… that wouldn’t change anything in the forum. The same people post about stablecoins, and VPN use, and IPv6 support etc etc over and over. They’re emotional posts: that’s fine: and they won’t be changed by things-you-can-count - like poll results.
We haven’t heard of Vivant being unhappy on Select… I don’t think?
That performance testing was fun! Though SNOs would definately be wary now if Storj asked them about adding disks again: because last time many did add capacity… and then Select was used at the last-minute. Now it’s definately more “fill the space I have first… then I’ll add more”.