Too much supply leads to low payouts to SNOs and ultimately higher churn as Nodes leave the network.
I am not sure that this is such a big risk, because I see a negative feedback loop here:
more nodes leaving leads to more repair traffic,
more repair traffic leads to bigger payments,
bigger payments lead to nodes staying for a bit longer.
Hence I’d hypothesize that in case the demand does not grow as quickly as supply, the effect on the growth of supply will be delayed—hopefully long enough to attract more demand.
Supply of data to store is not much of an issue once your node is fully qualified. I am seeing around 30GBytes of new data being pushed to my single node daily. It’s based in the UK and has been active for just over 3 months.
With the Storj estimator now having been taken down the chances of new node operators joining with very high-income expectations has been greatly reduced.
As for your described negative feedback loop, surely that is a positive feedback loop from a node operator point of view due to the “more repair traffic leads to bigger payments” part. What we don’t know is how the current repair traffic compaires to storj’s business plan.
It kind of does and it doesn’t. The cost for Storj is mostly related to satellite costs, not node payments. But nodes do get paid for egress repair traffic. This is really not going to be enough to prevent node churn if data is spread too thin though. It also really only works on nodes that have been around for a while, newer nodes see much less repair egress as all segments are new and haven’t had time to lose pieces yet. This means you get a lot of nodes rotating in and out, which really wouldn’t be good for the network and costly for repair.
Egress repair pays < Egress and the emphasis was “bigger” payouts. For the sake of numbers $10/TB of Egress repair vs $20/TB of Egress traffic. I think the meaning of the word “costly” is lost in the translation.
does not mean 