Well You should have start with those line first:
“When we do change SNO payouts, whatever the future amount is, we are planning to roll it out in a gradual way which will include some sort of surge payout while the network growth catches up. We want to avoid any sudden drop in payouts. It will also give us time to evaluate how well it works for the community and respond to ongoing feedback. Given that our initial plan is to transition to the new pricing with surge payouts within the next month or two, then the level of surge pricing will gradually reduce as the demand grows.”
before You showed the proposal rates, coz they are scary.
You better edit that while topic still fresh.
If the traffic load will increase and recompensate new rate to current rate,
and SNO will actually earn the same monthly, OR more,
the rates doesn’t really matters that much.
Just that You said one month or two, wow’s me.
That would mean You expect some really big incease in load very soon.
Coz i would say it would take much longer, because SNO will have to monitor theirs monthly income, and gives You feedback monthly how its going.
And You have to adjust acrodingly, so it seems not so fast process.
Also i dont understand the range
“Egress (per TB) was $20, propose: $1.50 - $5.00”
soo whats Your proposal for us to give feedback is? for egress? $1.50 or $5 or … $3?
if You want to give us $1.5 then give us minimum 13.3333333333 times more egress load,
If You want to give us $5 then give us minimum 4 times more egress load please.
Now, i anticipated it would take us to this situation.
So i proposed STORJ to control new nodes sign up’s, so that most valuable, because
most experienced, established old nodes will get what they need for sustainability.
It didn’t happen.
So now, nodes who shouldn’t been able to join in fist place, joined.
Now EVERY SNO will have to pay the price of that, in form of reduced payout for storage and for bandwidth.
In case of no rise in egress load first, that’s like lose-lose situation.
Hopes its not the case.
(As i said lower You rates, sure, but FIRST You rise the traffic. here)
if it’s hopefully not the case,
which we can’t know,
were kinda scared now(!)
(coz You can’t say, coz customers info joining is confidential)
if it’s not the case,
then we will be fine, no matter what’s the rates per TB are.
In case the traffic doesn’t rise…
Why SNO’s have to pay for YOUR decisions? that You didn’t shut doors to new nodes making,
when overpopulation, oversupply, was obvious even 2 years ago when i posted about it:
here 1
here 2 - “(…)Don’t You understand that its better to have lets say 8000 nodes, and pay them well, than 16000 nodes and everyone kinda unhappy? because it what its goin to right now, especialy the new ones will make BAD NAME to Storj after that unpleasent experience.(…)”
here 3 - “(…)its better to pay all participating people good, and manage/balance inflow of new nodes joining, than let everyone join free and dissapoint everyone with poor payment(…)”
here 4 -
"(…)of coruse the minuses of such managment would be it should be monitored carefully, because its a balance(!!!) beetween:
- paying nodes really good enough (i said more FAIR to theirs efforts, its resposible job i have nodes goin offline every couple of days for whatever reasons (for ex: ip operator domain fails) and i have to act)
and
- having network capasity large, to take new big customers with no problem.
And the PROS would be as always, the more restricted something is, the more interest it gets. Again i did not invented this, Stroj started ON/OFF’ing new nodes long ago.(…)"
But now, 2 years later,
You still have to do the balancing, just now, in between payments for SNOs,
so i guess balancing was innevitable, just now it will be painfull.
Now OLD nodes will hate You, and new Nodes will hate You.
If population contol scenario was on, today:
- OLD nodes would be OK, and understanding if cuts would be nessesary,
(but thats not sure thing, that any drastic changes would be nessesary)
and
New nodes would not hate You, because they wouldn’t be there in first place.
So old nodes would be respected by You, so YOU would be respected and understood -
“there is only so much traffic to get at the moment”
At current situation.
Well, i guess we, the old nodes understand that, this way of lowering rates,
it will probbaly comes to the same results.
But in much unpleasant manner.
Old nodes will not be feard, will stay and just get the trafiic from those who will decide to go.
But that’s not guarantee anyone will go.
What if everyone will try to stay in hopes for better traffic?
so it will be worse and worse for everyone in terms of income from STORJ,
without any horizon when it could change.
And if after 5-10-15 months no change for better, then the decionion for leave will be much stronger AND will occure in old nodes.
in such bad scenario, even most loyal will be pissed off of gradual decrase for so long.
So thats where don’t making decion of population control ahead, gets us now.
I guess it is understandable enough, but in case it isn’t, it was like:
- controling population so there is always food for everyone
vs - letting population grow uncontrollably and at some point just kill half population to feed the other half.
@o1eal
2 years later,
i would like to see how it still might mean im “wrong about the general satisfaction level among SNOs.”
https://forum.storj.io/t/restrain-new-nodes-to-provide-all-nodes-at-least-1tb-egress-mo/14228/37?u=ruskiem
To be clear, I guess in current situation STORJ is finally in face of a growth,
Thats what graph shows, exceleration of overall PB of storage,
so i don’t see any space for closing for new nodes now.
That was to be implemented 2 years ago in phase “in construcion”.
I belive now, STORJ is very operational finnaly, and ready to shine finnally.
Now i think storj should focus on geting traffic.
in case what @NotPaidForBugReport showed, there others things to cut first if so.
Don’t scare Your SNOs with cutting payouts, please 
From now on, lets grow together!