Update Proposal for Storage Node Operators - Open for Comments

ok, then you can restore your post…

I don’t quite get what impossiblecloud are offering. As far as I can tell it’s still data hosted in multiple data centres (albeit geographically separated ones)…
I don’t see what they can offer that is better than Storj?

HIPAA and GDPR Compliance, also security standards and SLA not worse than used cloud providers.
Storj offers the same (or better) at least with geofencing feature, except SOC maybe, but it would be changed in the future.

The new facility will offer Impossible Cloud and its customers virtually limitless scalability throughout Europe, with more than 8 petabytes of initial raw storage capacity, access to further enterprise data centers, and durability beyond “11 nines.” Other flexibility- and capacity-focused features include:

  • Enterpise-grade, S3-compatible and easy to integrate object storage
  • Versioning, object lock / immutability capability ensuring retention of all stored files in their original version
  • Programmatic identity access management (IAM) allowing the creation of multiple users, access keys, sub-users and groups via API/CLI
  • GDPR-readiness needed for EU businesses as well as a sophisticated partner portal for distribution partners.

The new EU data center adheres to Impossible Cloud’s robust security and reliability standards and features. Furthermore, Impossible Cloud’s solution exceeds the highest industry standards with its proprietary orchestration and security software layer, with key features including triple encryption; Microsoft multi-factor authentication (MFA); and cross-origin resource sharing (CORS), an important security feature that helps prevent cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks and other types of malicious activity. Additionally, Impossible Cloud’s solution seamlessly integrates with leading backup and disaster-recovery software like Veeam, Nakivo, Acronis, Comet Backup and many more.

Importantly, Impossible Cloud prioritizes data privacy compliance, including GDPR and US geo-fencing requirements. The solution’s global network ensures all data is handled appropriately and provides full transparency into where data is stored, giving customers complete visibility and control over their cloud storage.

This makes room for undocumented bugs and exploits. Every time I hear “proprietary”, I run the other way. See Threema messenger with it’s proprietary encryption… and a lot more.


Hello Storage Node Operators!

Important: This includes an announcement of changes to payout rates for storage nodes on three production satellites: asia-east-1, europe-west-1, us-central-1 effective July 1st

First of all thank you all for your feedback and support during this time of change. We are grateful for the discussion and your engagement on the forums and elsewhere.

Since the changes made May 1st, (announced on April 17th) we have monitored the conversations in the forum and the health of the network and want to report on the results we’ve observed based on the steps taken to date.

What we did

We announced on April 17, 2023 that there would be changes to payout rates for storage nodes on three satellites: saltlake, europe-north-1, and us2 effective May 1st.

Additionally, on June 14th, we announced that we would be sunsetting the europe-north-1, and us2 satellites (some additional information on this below and more details on this to come later).

What we observed

We were interested in determining whether the changes to the incentive model would impact the health of the network. We measured the following dimensions of network health:

Overall node count dimensions Measure on April 16 Measure on June 25 % change
Count of active nodes on saltlake 23,275 22,448 -3.6%
Count of active nodes on us2 23,275 22,448 -3.6%
Count of active nodes on europe-north-1 23,275 22,448 -3.6%
Median Daily Repair Bandwidth (TB) Mar 1 - Apr 16 Apr 17 - June 25 % Change
saltlake 16.4 24.1 46.8%
us2 0.11 0.10 -11.9%
europe-north-1 11.0 19.5 76.7%
Nodes initiating graceful exit (GE) or going offline by satellite Measure on April 16 Measure on June 25 Median +/- 1 Stdev March 01 - April 16
Count of nodes that called for GE in the prior 30 days saltlake 262 163 222 +/- 41.3
Count of nodes that called for GE in the prior 30 days us2 107 181 110 +/- 17.1
Count of nodes that called for GE in the prior 30 days europe-north-1 210 197 195 +/- 26.6
Count of nodes that went offline in the prior 30 days saltlake 607 438 723 +/- 70.2
Count of nodes that went offline in the prior 30 days us2 613 448 626 +/- 25.8
Count of nodes that went offline in the prior 30 days europe-north-1 608 443 617 +/- 20.1

This data shows a few important things:

  • There was only a small decrease in the number of active nodes on the satellites, largely driven by about 1000 nodes going offline around June 8th;
  • The nodes that did leave the network seem to represent a small number of node operators rather than a general exodus
  • Only moderate increases in repair traffic was observed
  • There was no significant increase in nodes calling for GE or going offline;
  • At no time did any of these changes threaten the health of the network or the data in any way;

Based on the results above, we have decided to make an additional change to the node payout rates.

Please read the following FAQ carefully as it details the changes we are planning to make. It also hopefully addresses some of the concerns that have been posted in the forum. As always we would love to hear from you and understand your thoughts and/or concerns on these changes. Please share any thoughts you have by replying to this post.

The Storj Team

Q: Why did I see such a sharp decline in my payout in April and May, when the payout changes weren’t supposed to take effect until May?

A: Many of you have noticed a sharp decline in your individual payouts in April and were concerned that this was related to the changes of the payout rates. This mostly impacted nodes and data on the us-central-1 satellite. On this satellite the amount of customer egress dipped dramatically during April. It is difficult for us and our customers to predict ahead of time how much egress traffic they anticipate using. Our customers are typically growing, but often they are also implementing updated infrastructure which changes their usage pattern on the network. Over time as we increase in customers, these changes will be less dramatic, but for egress especially, we do anticipate swings from month to month to continue in perpetuity as it is much more fluid than data stored.

Regarding egress decreases in May, part of the story is what is described above, in that customers’ behavior is unpredictable, but we also took action against some abusive accounts on the network which did decrease the amount of egress traffic on all production satellites.

Q: What will the updated payouts be beginning July 1st?

A: We have decided based on the metrics we have been following and the input from the forum, to make the following changes to node payouts. Note: the rates previously set on May 1st for non production satellites will remain in effect:

This is the new payment schedule that will take effect as of July 1st, 2023:

Q: Are you planning to add any synthetic load to the network along with these payout reductions?

A: Over the past few months there has been a large increase in the amount of data stored. This growth in the storage on the network has led us to feel that we do not need to add additional synthetic data at this time, even with the upcoming removal of the two test satellites’ data.

Q: Will I be able to see the impact of the payout changes on my node dashboard?

A: We are working on updates to the node dashboard which will allow us to show historical and future anticipated payouts using different payout rates. If there is a change to the payouts in the current month, those changes won’t be reflected in the node dashboard until the payouts have been completed for the previous month. Until we finish making changes, historical values might also not show the correct earnings. Currently, you can see payout rates per satellite if you select an individual satellite on the payout information page of the dashboard.

Q: Do you anticipate making further changes to the payouts?

A: To reiterate a bit from our last post, fundamentally, storage node operator (SNO) payments right now are being subsidized by us to grow the network, and we are currently in a position where the network is larger than it needs to be for the demand we have. We realize that dropping payment rates will slow the growth of, and maybe even continue to shrink, the network, and that is precisely what we have decided we need to do.

In doing this we are targeting greater utilization of the network. This should enable SNOs’ drives to fill faster and produce higher returns over time. We do not yet know exactly where we will land in the long term on the payout amounts but we trust that the conversations we have, the economic signals we receive, and the corresponding network statistics will inform this process for us. We will monitor network capacity, sustainability, node churn, stability, and health at each step of the process, using this information to determine what, if any, further actions are needed.

Q: What updates can be provided regarding the shutdown of us2 and europe-north-1?

A: At this point we are still finalizing the exact shutdown process and timing, and will communicate more about that as it is determined. But we do anticipate beginning to delete data from the satellites very soon.

Q: What options do SNOs have if the new payout structure doesn’t work for them?
A: If at some point in this process the payouts for a satellite do not work for you, you can of course gracefully exit the given satellite.


The new rates of $1.5 for storage and $6 for egress and repair are fine with me given the energy prices in Germany.

I especially appreciate that you kept the $1.5 for storage. Since we have seen that egress can change dramatically from month to month, it is good to have a predictable income from storage/TB.

Please note that if you want to reduce even more, you should do so in much smaller steps from now on. Even a $1 reduction for egress can mean a node is no longer profitable.

I would hope that when you think you have found a sweet spot in pricing and won’t be lowering for some time, you will announce how long you will maintain prices before lowering any more.


Hystorical payment rates for Saltlake, in the table, are wrong.


After first proposal I removed 30% of my nodes.
After you decreased ingress and egress - another 30%
Today I run GE at most valuable nodes and once it finished, I will quit completely. I received great experience in VPN and filesystems. Never before I faced such challenges, and it was nice to solve it.


Corrected. Thank you!

So, as I read the above table, once a node becomes full or close to full SNO’s should GE Saltlake to make space for higher paying data.

That was kind of already the case as there has been basically no egress on test satellites for a long time now. Or you could just expand if it’s still profitable. It’s still paid data.

Yes, but the final pay rates were not determined for production at that time so it was impossible to know if the test sats would be aligned with production long term. Now we know they won’t be.

Does it really matter though if there is not egress to pay for to begin with? Unless you were hoping that would return, which at this point seems kind of unlikely any time soon anyway.

Im a bit curious why onboarding hasnt been closed yet? Is storj afraid to many SNOs would leave at the network sametime?

No need to close anything. The economic will make a balance.


I too, at first had the same thought but then I thought keeping registrations open would help Storj be more decentralized as SNOs from other regions might jump in. If registrations are closed then you are stuck with finite regions/locations for storage.


Surely not only? SNO’s may still want to replace drives/nodes that fail even if they don’t want to expand to additional nodes and increase their power costs further.


Well, true
But by reducing payouts you’re going to see a “centralisation” of nodes into areas where electricity is cheaper as well. There will be fewer people running nodes in places where it is not cost-effective to do so (although I accept that some people like me will run them even at a slight loss just for the fun of it all).


That’s not the only face of centralization here. Larger operations are more power efficient. Smaller payouts per TB mean only folks who have 10TB+ hard drives, preferably many of them in a single unit, will get enough revenue.

But then, seeing how Chia folks operate their farms, I don’t think it’s a problem actually. Cheap electricy may just as well mean solar panels in locations where grid power is expensive.