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.
6 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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).
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
Small typo but I believe “June 1st” should be “July 1st” in the new payment schedule image.
2 Likes
Yes, Thank you. Corrected!
1 Like
It is only more power efficient up to a point, which is approximately when a storage box is full.
Larger operations will need UPS systems and cooling which add costs both for power and writeoffs on equipment and building. Running nodes in a data center is significantly more expensive than running them at home.
I didn’t mean data centers, at least not in the high-grade stuff most people imagine, with redundant power supplies and diesel generators. This is not necessary for Storj—it’s fine to have hours of downtime per month.
Besides, at a scale where you need more than a rack of hardware (around 10 PB of raw storage?), I’d risk a guess a UPS and cooling would be just a small fraction of revenue… 500 drives plus other necessary hardware would be around 5 kWh. As a point of reference, Hetzner charges 0.45 EUR/kWh total for power/cooling/UPS/etc. in Germany (Finland is half that!), that would be 1.8 kUSD/month for our setup. For comparison, depreciation of HDDs would very pessimistically counting be around 4 kUSD monthly, and traffic (at Hetzner prices, scaling up numbers I observe recently for my nodes) 7 kUSD monthly. So even in a high-grade collocation rack it’s not that much, and given current revenue from just storing 10 PB of data would be 15 kUSD/month, doable.
The fill-factor should also be less of an issue at scale. As long as customer data grows, you only power up new drives when others are close to full. The only problem would be if customer data shrinks…
2 Likes
I have so much to say, but not a kind word. First you cry to the community that Storj is a losing business, propose a reduction in prices, reap massive criticism, improve your customization so that again no one cares and then quietly, THREE days before the new month you announce a MASSIVE cut, this time without involving the community, almost dictatorial. I am speechless. I hope the community punishes you for it. The fact that not so many nodes have left the network is only because you have communicated it so short and meekly, not because they accept it. When the first ones see a massive cut in August or no payment at all comes via Ethereum, the world will burn.
3 Likes
Aaaaand breathe! “The world will burn”?
Are you not, perhaps, being overly dramatic? 
If the business model no longer suits you then nobody forces you to keep nodes spun up.
But you’re right, it will be interesting to see what the next few weeks will bring with regards to node churn…
7 Likes
Admittedly, that was dramatically worded. I’m just angry about the way people here first hypocritically pretend to listen to the community’s opinion, only to give a sh*t about it.
3 Likes
The ranges for payout changes that were considered were communicated 4 months ago to be.
| Current Payout | Proposed Payout | |
|---|---|---|
| Storage (per TB Mo) | $1.50 | $0.75 - $1.00 |
| Egress (per TB) | $20 | $1.50 - $5.00 |
| Audit / Repair traffic (per TB) | $10 | $1.50 - $5.00 |
Since then they have frequently communicated as well as tested different payout changes on test satellites.
The new payouts are all above the initially suggested ranges. Payout per storage hasn’t changed at all and for egress it’s $1 more than the maximum originally considered. I’d say this shows they DID in fact listen.
On reasonably sized nodes the effective total reduction in pay is between 10-25%, because storage payout is the biggest part of your payout anyway. The reason there is no significant backlash is not because people aren’t reading this. It’s because most of us were expecting worse. And many of us are considering long term viability to be more important than quick gains now.
6 Likes
That was what Storj released for discussion, I mentioned that in my post too. But there was no sign of it being tamped down 2 months after it was introduced. And that one dollar concession is not “listening” for me. But opinions can differ. See it as an emotionally charged opinion of an individual with a small 15 TiB contribution to the project.
2 Likes
@Bryanm I would suggest to put new payout table to Node Operator Terms & Conditions (storj.io) because otherwise next month I would request payouts due to them.
Regarding to that “NOTC” 
5. Restrictions. You will operate the Storage Node in strict accordance with the terms of this Agreement and in no other manner. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you will not:
… …
-
Operate more than one (1) Storage Node behind the same IP address;
-
17.1.2. *… If we make material changes to this Agreement, we will provide notice of such changes, such as by posting the revised Node Operator Terms to the Storage Node Software and updating the “Last Updated” date at the top of this Agreement. By continuing to … …the revised version of the Agreement.
If you do not agree to the modified Agreement, you must stop interacting with the Storage Services and Storage Network.
Last Updated**” date at the top of this Agreement just missing.
WTF?
Also the numbers under 4. are a bit uncontinous…How old is that?
Maybe someone rework it ? link to old website?
I go to sleep now. Good Luck.
2 Likes