I think the SNO community needs to have a serious discussion about what we actually want the future of STORJ to look like.
In my opinion, remaining indefinitely in the current situation is not a real solution. If STORJ is going to continue to exist as a publicly traded token, it needs a sustainable economic purpose. If that is no longer the direction of the project, then perhaps we should allow the market to determine its future naturally.
I see two possible paths.
PATH 1 — Rebuild STORJ and create a sustainable long-term token economy
If Storj wants STORJ to remain an important part of the network, then we should seriously discuss redesigning its economics.
One possible model would be to significantly reduce the amount of STORJ distributed as SNO compensation — potentially around 50% — while simultaneously creating real utility, sustainable demand and incentives for long-term participation.
The idea is simple:
Today, SNOs receive tokens regularly. Many operators understandably need to sell at least part of those tokens to cover their expenses. This creates continuous sell pressure.
But imagine a different model.
If fewer tokens were distributed and SNOs had confidence that STORJ had a genuine long-term economic role in the network, some operators might prefer to accumulate and hold part of their rewards for 3–5 years instead of immediately selling them.
A long-term appreciation objective of perhaps 10–15% per year could be discussed as a goal of creating a healthier economy, but it must never be presented as a guaranteed return. Nobody — including Storj — can guarantee the future market price of STORJ.
The objective should therefore be:
Lower sell pressure + real utility + sustainable demand + long-term incentives for SNOs.
Price appreciation, if it happens, should be the consequence of a healthier token economy — not a promise.
This path would also better align the interests of the network, SNOs and long-term token holders.
SNOs would receive fewer tokens today, but in return they would have a reason to believe that the tokens they receive could have a meaningful economic future.
PATH 2 — If there is no future economic role for STORJ, allow it to disappear naturally from the market
But there is another possibility.
If management does not intend to build meaningful utility, sustainable tokenomics or a long-term economic role for STORJ, then perhaps the community should stop trying to artificially preserve the token’s existence as a traded asset.
In that situation, community members could provide the remaining exchanges with Storj management’s own public statements, original sources, relevant documents and other verifiable information concerning the intended purpose of STORJ.
If management’s position is that STORJ is primarily a utility/payment mechanism — for example, a mechanism used to compensate Storage Node Operators — rather than an investment or trading product, exchanges should be able to consider those statements when reviewing the asset.
This matters because people using centralized exchanges encounter STORJ in a trading environment.
Exchange users are traders and market participants. They should have accurate information about the intended economic purpose of the asset they are trading and should not be left with a misleading impression about its role.
The community does not need to demand that exchanges delist STORJ.
Instead, the message can simply be:
“Here are the project’s own public statements and the relevant verifiable information concerning STORJ. Please independently review whether STORJ continues to satisfy your requirements for trading and continued listing.”
Then let each exchange’s listing, compliance and risk teams make their own decision.
There should be no spam, no false accusations, no misleading statements and no selective manipulation of quotations. Everything provided should be factual, verifiable and preferably linked directly to the original source.
If exchanges independently conclude that STORJ no longer satisfies their listing standards and gradually remove it, then we should simply allow the token to fade naturally from the trading market.
Technically, the token would still exist on the blockchain.
But if centralized exchange liquidity progressively disappears, liquidity and price discovery could become weaker. And if no meaningful utility or organic demand replaces that liquidity, STORJ could gradually become economically irrelevant, even while technically continuing to exist.
That would be the token’s natural market outcome, rather than the community indefinitely trying to maintain a trading market for an asset that no longer has a meaningful economic role.
So what do we actually want?
For me, the choice is becoming increasingly clear.
Path 1:
Give STORJ a genuine economic future. Redesign the tokenomics, reduce unnecessary sell pressure, create real demand and utility, and give SNOs a reason to think in terms of 3–5 years rather than the next payout.
Or Path 2:
If management does not want to build that future for STORJ, provide the remaining exchanges with the project’s own statements and verifiable information, allow them to independently apply their listing standards, and let STORJ naturally disappear from the trading ecosystem if that is where those independent decisions lead.
What does not make sense, in my opinion, is remaining indefinitely somewhere in the middle:
maintaining a publicly traded token while at the same time treating its market role, liquidity and long-term economic value as unimportant.
I would genuinely like to hear what other SNOs think.
Would you accept receiving fewer STORJ today if a credible long-term economic model gave the token a healthier future?
Or, if no such future is intended, should we simply give exchanges the relevant information and let the market decide whether STORJ should continue to be traded?
I want to provide storage and get some compensation. There is other ways of compensation I would prefer. Thats’ it - as a SNO I never needed the token.
That idea has always been “simple”… but never easy, and it’s repeated over and over in crypto. There are thousands of tokens that try to “create real utility”, but most fail. I can keep saying “just create a unicorn out-of-thin-air: it’s simple”… but that does nothing to help make it happen 
There has always been meaningful utility. Granted: part of the initial utility is complete: being something that can be sold to fund the company. That’s because the treasury has run dry. But the other parts remain: one is a way to compensate SNOs. Global payouts have always been a use for STORJ. And the other is the option for customers to save 10% on their bill: that still remains too.
What’s misleading? Storj is buying tokens to cover payouts (without dealing with country-specific fiat rules), and customers buy them for the 10% discount. SNOs sell tokens because they want cash. That’s it: accurate information about the intended economic purpose. And that loop can run forever in a Uniswap LP without any CEX support.
If that means degen crypto bros don’t speculate on STORJ… that’s fine: there’s no reason to believe you can make money flipping it. Never has been 
That’s… exactly where we are now. The tokenomics aren’t hidden: and the market is-where-it-is because it understands what STORJ is for. Some SNOs, however, do not 
Maybe Storj will survive Chapter 11. And if they can afford it maybe one day they’ll transition to a stablecoin. But STORJ works, now, and has worked for years. There’s no big conspiracy, and none of their current business problems would be fixed by making claims that the token has suddenly acquired some new, grand, purpose.
Customer pricing should also be sustainable
If we are discussing reducing SNO compensation to improve the economics of the network, then customer pricing should also be part of that discussion.
Why should new customers receive significant discounts from the beginning?
Instead of using aggressive discounts to acquire customers, Storj could charge a sustainable market-based price from the start and reward customers who demonstrate genuine long-term commitment.
For example, a customer could become eligible for preferential pricing after two years of continuous usage.
This changes the purpose of the discount:
Instead of paying customers to come in, we reward customers for staying.
A sustainable network should not depend on continuously reducing the income of SNOs while simultaneously giving away large discounts to attract new customers.
Both sides of the economics matter: the cost of operating the network and the revenue generated from customers.
If SNOs are being asked to accept lower token compensation for the long-term health of the ecosystem, it is reasonable to ask management to demonstrate the same financial discipline on the customer-pricing side.
It’s already in-line with their competition. What price do you feel is “sustainable”?
They don’t. Everyone pays the same: it’s not based on age. But it is common in some industries to have intro pricing to get people to switch (if you have lots of competitors). Storj could certainly consider it if they survive.
It’s easy enough for customers using S3 to change providers… it seems unlikely they’d value switching now for a discount after 2 years. Don’t most businesses make more money doing the opposite: using short-term promo pricing to gain customers… and hope they don’t leave when the promo ends?
I agree 100%! That’s not what’s happening: not the continuous-reduction, nor the large-discounts… but it certainly doesn’t sound like a path to success.
No. Why do you think that? What they pay SNOs… and what they charge customers: are two separate things… and they need to make a profit to survive. If they get too greedy: potential customers will just go to one-of-their-many competitors. Showing “financial discipline” for a company in Chapter 11 is ideally charging customers more and paying SNOs less.
I think you described a stacking with your first proposal. I find it similar to the idea started on
With your second proposal you described the current situation, traders should be aware of an utility function of the STORJ token and it doesn’t meant to be an investment vehicle. But traders plays on their own rules - pump and dump, usually they even doesn’t know, for what purpose it’s used.
Maybe I misunderstand, but if you think that new customers who pay with STORJ got a 10% discount, then - no. They got a 10% bonus on top-up, so basically they will have more USD on their balance, which cannot be withdrawn. So it should incentive to stay longer.
So, your proposal
is already implemented as not a direct discount but as an incentive to stay longer, because they have more balance when they pay with STORJ tokens.
Alexey, regarding the staking/buyback proposal you linked, this is actually part of the reason I am raising these questions now.
We were told about buybacks, smart-contract funding and eventually staking. But where are those mechanisms today?
I checked the publicly identified buyback wallet. The transactions I can see are transfers, and from those transfers alone I cannot verify that the tokens were actually purchased from the open market. More importantly, the tokens accumulated in that wallet are no longer sitting there. Where did those tokens go, and what happened to the original buyback/staking plan?
And even if staking were implemented, I don’t believe staking by itself solves the fundamental problem.
Staking a token without sustainable demand, sufficient liquidity and a reasonably healthy market simply transfers more price risk to the people holding it. Locking or holding more STORJ does not create an underlying buyer.
I raised this question in previous topics: if traders and market makers stop buying STORJ, who is the natural buyer?
SNOs receive STORJ. If customers are not creating sufficient token demand, and traders and market makers are no longer interested in buying it, then who absorbs the continuing supply?
I never received a convincing answer to that question.
And now I think we are reaching exactly that point.
Good node operators have already left or are considering leaving because operating a node has to make economic sense. The remaining operators cannot be expected to continue indefinitely with no clear economic objective or future, simply hoping that something eventually changes.
Some people may continue because they enjoy the technology, because their electricity is effectively subsidized by solar panels or shared costs, or simply because they want to support the project. That’s perfectly fine as a personal choice.
But that is not a sustainable economic model for a global storage network.
Nothing changes simply by waiting.
That is why I proposed two paths.
Either take serious action to rebuild the economics of STORJ — real demand, sustainable SNO economics, reduced sell pressure and a credible long-term reason to hold the token —
or stop artificially trying to preserve a market for a token that no longer has a clear economic future.
In the second case, provide the remaining exchanges with the project’s own public statements and verifiable information, let them independently review whether STORJ still meets their listing standards, and if liquidity and listings continue to disappear, allow STORJ to fade naturally from the trading market.
Maybe reaching that point would finally force us to test a simpler model: compensate SNOs in ETH, a stablecoin, fiat, or another sufficiently liquid payment asset, and see whether the storage network itself can stand on its own economics.
I’m not arguing that STORJ should disappear because I dislike the token. I’m saying that if we are unwilling or unable to build a sustainable economic reason for people to buy and hold it, we should stop pretending that simply keeping it alive is a strategy.
Currently any significant spends are on hold. It might be reconsidered after the Chapter 11, but not now.
You can track it on a blockchain, I believe to SNOs’ payout, since the final idea wasn’t implemented.
I think it’s in an early stage and requires investments, so it’s on hold.
Customers and Storj, also I don’t believe that traders will stop trading. The history of useless and unlisted SJCX proved this.
This is obvious, since Storj need to pay SNOs, it will buyback tokens from the market. You can easily check this on the blockchain.
So your question still questioning me why this multiple provided obvious answer is ignored over and over again.
This is meaning that they come here as miners. This is not mining, because the hardware doesn’t matter, only customers, who drive a demand. Oversupply doesn’t drive it, basic economic. We suggested to do not invest, they decided on themselves, now when the economic for them is gone, they are gone. And we again back to the roots - people, who already have an online hardware with Storj or without. Running a node gives them a nice discount to already paid bills.
Where the second one is already implemented as far as I understand and the first one is started but currently on hold due to Chapter 11.
This is done in the first day when exchanges decided to list the token, we provided them with all requested information. So, I don’t understand, why do you think we didn’t?
Currently there is no plans to do that. All these suggestions were shared, but received zero responses, so I would assume it likely not going to happen.
I would guess that it’s what the linked proposal wanted to achieve. I don’t have all details unfortunately.
I think we are going in circles now, so let me be very clear about where I think we actually are.
Many of the SNOs who are still operating may be doing so with extremely low costs, or effectively for free. And I would not be surprised if a significant percentage of the remaining operators are also staying because they hope to receive equity through the restructuring.
Personally, I would not build my decision to operate a node around that expectation.
Equity in a company going through Chapter 11 should not automatically be treated as something valuable. Its eventual value could be very low or even zero, depending on the restructuring, liabilities, dilution, ownership structure and future performance of the company.
And even if equity is eventually distributed, that does not mean there will soon be a liquid public market where SNOs can sell it. Personally, I would be very surprised if Storj became a publicly traded company within the next five years.
We already have major stakeholders and creditors fighting over rights, collateral and control. So receiving “equity” should not be confused with receiving liquid, valuable publicly traded shares.
There is another issue that concerns me even more: token concentration.
Alexey, you said Storj does not maintain a strategic STORJ reserve. Fine.
But I have spent considerable time monitoring the largest STORJ wallets and exchange-wallet movements. What I see is an extremely concentrated token distribution.
Based on those on-chain observations, I suspect that more than 200 million STORJ may ultimately be associated with a relatively small number of related holders or entities.
I cannot prove beneficial ownership from blockchain addresses alone, so I am deliberately calling this an observation and hypothesis, not a fact. The same applies to the largest wallet: I have reasons to suspect it may be connected to that concentration, but an address alone does not prove who controls it.
And this is precisely the risk.
If a very large percentage of the economically relevant supply is controlled by one entity or a coordinated group, smaller holders and SNOs are operating in a market where they have almost no influence over price discovery.
Such a holder could theoretically sell into strength, increase supply when prices rise, and accumulate again after prices fall. I am not claiming that this is what is happening — proving market manipulation requires substantially more evidence than wallet concentration.
But the concentration itself creates that risk.
And if that concentration is combined with disappearing exchange liquidity, fewer market makers and weaker independent demand, escaping that pricing structure becomes increasingly difficult.
This is why simply telling SNOs to wait, stake, hold, or hope for future equity does not solve the problem for me.
Hope is not an economic model.
If SNO economics are no longer sustainable, if the proposed buyback/staking mechanisms are currently stopped, if future equity is uncertain and illiquid, and if token ownership is highly concentrated, then we need to acknowledge the situation as it actually exists today rather than build another model around something that may happen years from now.
Storj was operating at a loss for years: sustained by STORJ sales: not a secret. They’ve run out of tokens, and they have a mountain of old debts. They’re trying to reduce costs, and renegotiate debt repayments, to show a court that they can become profitable month-by-month, and exit Chapter 11. Or simply sell themselves to someone else that can dig them out of their hole.
Having SNOs buy the company isn’t going anywhere: it has to be an option (but not a good one). Staking is paused: they can’t afford it. Token concentration isn’t an issue. All the things you mention aren’t even in the top-100 problems Storj has. And none are hidden: there’s nothing to “acknowledge”. It’s deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic 
For SNOs: guesses about profitability really is just listening to ourselves talk. There are more-than-enough nodes now, and there will be more-than-enough after payouts drop: just like every payout reduction before. Storj exiting Chapter 11 isn’t at-risk because of the number of nodes on the network.
They could have reduced payment well below $1 in the past and they could have created products competative in price. But they did not because there was always plenty of free money (tokens) to burn. Only bancruptcy forced them into serious cost cutting. So I am not sure if the token was that much helpful to develope the company.
I have decided to leave this forum as well.
The reason is simple: I no longer see a common interest or a shared objective among the people here.
A community can only have a meaningful future when its members have interests that are sufficiently aligned and when they can work toward common goals. When everyone is moving in different directions and carrying completely different incentives, it becomes very difficult to call it a real community.
I have shared my concerns, ideas and suggestions, and I think I have said everything I needed to say.
So I will leave with just one piece of advice:
Protect your own interests. Ask difficult questions. Verify things for yourselves, and don’t allow your loyalty to a project, technology or community to be used against you.
Supporting technology is one thing. Allowing others to benefit from your time, resources and commitment without a sustainable benefit for you is something completely different.
I genuinely wish all SNOs here the best.
Take care of yourselves, and don’t let anyone take advantage of you.
Goodbye.
Thanks for helping with the network: I’m sorry to see you go 
. Please check back in six months or so to see if everything shut down… or if we survived! 
Maybe you’ll come back! 