Update Proposal for Storage Node Operators

I actually could picture this as an ad and the guy sounding really excited to tell you about it. At the sametime thinking what a scam this is gonna turn out to be in the future these guys got no idea what this actually is. BITTTTCONNNECT. They used the same slogon.

I can tell you 100% if they go with anything close to this proposal storj is gonna be history. The worst part of this is without really thinking about it and posted it anyways People were complaining storj wasnt profitable before this…Lol The first proposal is like a kick in the nuts and then kick you while your down. If that wasnt a low ball I dont know what is.

I lost a hard drive just the other day you think im gonna buy a new hard drive to start another node nope.

2 Likes

Lol. I forgot a few parts. Was going to add a part about slowing your system to a crawal because your drives maxed out. Ehh… to late now.

I was expecting some cuts, but not this. I was really hoping Storj would realize they need to charge more too. Guess they don’t care.

I think the amount would be fine if there wasnt 22k Nodes to compete for data if they had stopped accepting new nodes we probably wouldnt be having this discussion. I was a long supporter of storj and now it just feels like all the other projects that fell short.

  1. I don’t support the idea that Storj becomes another Sia; as a SNO, I don’t want to bother with setting prices and making offers for customers. If I wanted that, I was running Sia nodes, not Storj nodes. And that model is very wrong and doomed to fail. Is just a competition for the lowest price were sno will eventualy loose money.
  2. Attracting nodes with big payouts that were not covered by customers, was a wrong strategy, because it lead us to this moment. It should had been better to let the network grow naturaly, with the corect payouts covered by customer prices. But now we must accept it, take the hit, and find a good model that will be future proof, with natural growth. Dev team should simulate how the network will look like in 5 years and if the payouts support that.
    We want more price stability and predictibility.
    Why 5 years? Because the hdd life is estimated at 5 years.
    Now it only makes sense to start a node with a 20+ TB HDD, or to move the small nodes to new 20+ TB HDDs. Taking this into account and the energy prices that will only rise from now on, you should imagine if in 5 years 20k nodes of 20TB are viable or not, and with what prices. The price per TB stored is the bases here, because the nodes are filled quickly and the engress goes to 0. I won’t keep a node up for less than 1$/TB. A 20TB HDD can take 18TB of data. So 18$ - 5$ energy > 13$ profit/month. Is this ok for you? Will you keep it on?
  3. The engress payout is the biggest profit maker, untill the node is filled. It gives 70% of the payout. This pays for the hardware and gives SNO a big reward and satisfaction. The data stored payout is just for making the SNO keeping the node up after it fills up.
  4. Increase the DCS prices at the same level as competition (5-10 is at Backblaze?!). That way we won’t complain anymore.
  5. Move towered the small users, individuals; don’t limit this tech to devs and big businesses.
1 Like

Those where numbers for starting a new node with 20TB HDD.
But for my actual 16TB nodes, I’m OK with 1.5$/TB stored and 7.5$/TB engress (repair, engress… it should be payed the same; it’s not my problem what type of data gets downloaded and for what; engress is engress), as long as you demand customers 5$/TB stored and 10$/TB engress.
If the maximum limit won’t go more than 1-5, than 1-5 it is, if engress grows exponentialy. Less than that is just stupid.

Click to unfold, quotes and replies:

littleskunk, i think this new approach address all 3.

@littleskunk i think this new approach address all 3. here

s-t-o-r-j-user, IT MIGHT be in favor of SNOs, here's how:

@s-t-o-r-j-user IT MIGHT be in favor of SNOs, here’s how: here

BrightSilence, This numbers might ending up with Storj taking over the internet:

@BrightSilence This numbers might ending up with Storj taking over the internet: here
i know the edge service etc, mayby its time for STORj to stop using others, and theirs ways, for marketing leverage, and start being a brand by itself with its OWN solutions of unmatched quality.

Bivvo, This proposal would give You $54/mo for this setup.

@Bivvo This proposal would give You $54/mo for this setup. here

IsThisOn i would like You to look at this proposal

@IsThisOn exactly, “storage has to be as high as possible for nodes not to shutdown” i would like You to look at this proposal, here

SGC, No, not realy,

@SGC No, not realy, it was just a part of the picture and the approach needed, heres full picture

Knowledge, yeah, but no need to reduce supply, with this approach

@Knowledge No need to reduce supply, with this approach, here

JDA, i was thinking the same, so i was figuring out a solution for last 2 days, and its this

@JDA i was thinking the same, so i was figuring out a solution for last 2 days, and this what came out, here

PePeR - "Most of people that showed their calculations here, say they’re not gonna bother running nodes." lest change that, here's how

@PePeR “Most of people that showed their calculations here, say they’re not gonna bother running nodes.” lest change that, heres how

Pentium100, hah i feel You, You got ~ 45TB stored, with this approach You would get ~ $135/mo

@Pentium100 hah i feel You, i see You have got ~ 45TB stored, with this approach i wrote, You would get ~ $135/mo, would like to see Your opinion about it, here

@Milo123459 You r getting it.

Stob im sorry, but its the only way, if Storj is to thrive.

@Stob im sorry, but it’s the only way, if Storj is to thrive.
You have to unlock the bandwidth card to a great degree.
Not like to saturate Your connection tho.
Otherwise, judging by feedbacks here, too many SNOs will give it up.
What can lead to the end fast, or STORj will have not enough advantage to rise up, to make a difference, to break through and just decline …
The gain is You will be payed as good as now, or more, vs STORj not existing.
I’m sure we can take a lot of bandwidth as a whole, we didn’t even scratched what is possible for us, my nodes are snoring for 3 years, 3 YEARS almost idle, and we should agree to just decimation of SNOs? and the squandering of what we have developed over the last 3-4 years?

Do You remember those years of torrent crazyness? when everybody downloaded everything 24/7? and we even haven’t had fibers 1000/500 in home back then…

In STORj, there are no HDDs from chance. There are internet connections, but HDDs?
HDDs are like to put, when You need them to Your setup. So Your setup might be “used as it is already in use 24h” By HDD You should just have good one, heavy duty HGST, Ultrastar, or get used one, 2-3 years old, for such operation, they have 2,5 mil hours MTFB (means a "statistical value that defines after how much time a first failure in a population of devices may occur (measured in hours). If MTFB is given as 2,5 million hours, and the drives are operated within the specifications, one drive failure per hour can be expected for a population of 2,5 million drives) or You risk HDD failure and don’t care. Everyone should know that, when signs up, that it will somehow hit HDDs the most, so no surprise, You knew what project Your signing for.

And You can’t just shrink your storj space, so when You jump on STORj idea, it’s for the long run.
So if it’s long run, You has to be prepared, to have adequate hardware, right tools for the job.

And if someone want to cheat and block traffic after HDD filled, then satelites should take care of that, anti-cheat mechanism should be implemented.

i would kindly like to hear from You again, if You see it different after reading an picture for a new approach i wrote here

atomsymbol, good point

@atomsymbol good point.

nyancodex, You can support this

@nyancodex You can support this, here

jammerdan, I would like to invite you to check that approach

@jammerdan I would like to invite you to check approach, where lowering the price, is supposed to make you increase your earnings, and would like to hear from You what You think, here

RauchenwaldC, but this is the point

@RauchenwaldC but this is the point, they couldn’t get any serious customers anyway, so mayby really low prices approach, will knock the doors down and start a REAL revolution and liftoff! so SNOs can be well compensated, i wrote about it here

Tony_boy_32, Dont leave, support this idea, here

@Tony_boy_32 Dont leave, support this, here

Vadim, thats a good, clear example,

@Vadim thats a good, clear example, thank You very much, please check different approach i wrote about, here, and tell what do You think.

striker43, exactly, ''Seeing this, for a developer it’s much easier to just use the hosted gateway.''

@striker43 exactly, “Seeing this, for a developer it’s much easier to just use the hosted gateway.” So until those things are fixed, there must be REALY something, to make them want to use it, how about unmatched affordability? what will also secure SNOs payments, i explain here

Buganu, not necessary the prices, but the sales, but if they was unable to do so for 2 years?

@Buganu not necessary the prices, but the sales, but if they was unable to do so for 2 years? Come up with a proposal to a proposal, that should make sales much easier, here

Abernathy, Well said.

@Abernathy Well said. Got idea for different approach, You may want to look at, and tell if You would support it?, here

zanerv, then say if You see a solution in that:

@zanerv then please check the proposal to the proposal and say if You see a solution in that? here

MattJE96011, Well said. Despite all that, i still can see how Storj be profitable.

@MattJE96011 Well said. Despite all that, i still can see how Storj be profitable. i presented it, here

@john all those feedbacks up to now, speaks for itselfs.
Also what customers will want to work with a company known, from trying to make its workers slaves in shabby clothes, or disks in this case?
Will he perceive such company as good to store he’s data there?
Or will he rather not want to have anything to do with it?
Did You guys think about it from this angle?
I see different approach, approach of prosperity, please, take a look, here.

But it seems we are actually losing SNOs already:

But may be coincidence.

This is what Backblaze is making from it:

Fully integrated for ease and speed, with free egress from Backblaze B2

Should be possible for Storj to do something similar which might really help with costs.
But it also seems to be an interesting offer for customers anyway.

Made me laugh here in the cold and the dark

1 Like

So, the team has closed all branches of the discussion of the profitability of the Storj project, I think they will close this one.

I would like to draw the team’s attention once again that if you change the conditions for operators for the worse, it would be nice
:smiling_face_with_three_hearts: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
!!! to make some kind of compensation for those who came to other conditions: unlock escrow, or make an airdrop !!!.
:smiling_face_with_three_hearts: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

They’ve literally closed my previous topic on my request so we can have this discussion in one place. It wasn’t to stop the discussion but to organize it a little. We have more up to date information here, so it’s better to discuss it here now.

9 Likes

This right here is one of the many reasons why STORJ is not able to compete with AWS or even Backblaze! And this is not something they can get done in a year. Probably never.

This is the part where nodes and STORJ should finally realize, we are not selling an AWS premium product! We can’t even keep up with Backblaze! When it comes to S3, the story gets even worse. S3 is an industry-standard that everyone uses. It seems like our S3 is fully centralized, every GB comes at a huge loss for STORJ, it does not scale, and the performance crumbles under load.
I wonder, what more needs to happen for SNO and the STORJ team to finally realize, what STORJ is right now? STORJ is nothing more than a backup solution in its current state. So please act like it. If you find a new use case in the future, fine! But right now, get the basics done first!

So where should we go from here in my opinion?
Easy, find backup customers by offering compelling prices to them.
We already have established, that we can’t lower the storage price too much because of electricity prices.
4$ for storage and 5$ for egress is something that sounds compelling to backup customers. Give the nodes the whole storage price 4/2,3 = 1,73$.
For egress, you guys at STORJ have all the numbers to know what split you need to survive. Maybe it is 2,5$ for STORJ and 2,5$ for nodes?

But that is not enough. You need to get your shit together asap!

  • Cut costs. If edge services come at a loss, get rid of them! Will we lose customers? Hell yes! But nobody wants customers that cost them money.
  • Is the 2,3 factor maybe a little bit too wide? Can we cut costs by going for something like 1,5? It seems unlikely to me, that more than 33% of the nodes quit at the same time. For that 1,5 would be enough?
  • Integrations and Influencers! We need a STORJ backup solution on every device now! Synology, QNAP, Unraid, Proxmox and all that other stuff selfhoster use! How else would we get customer data? Subreddits like /selfhosted or /homelab should be your target audience. When Lawrence systems or servethehome publish a youtube vid about STORJ, you have reached your PR goal.

In the end, it all comes down to one thing that is true for so many failing companies:
get your priorities straight!

Like Jesus Christ, how STORJ is not on that list

despite being around for more than one year is beyond me! And that is just one example!

2 Likes

imagen

Extracted from: STORJ Token Balances and Flows Report: Q4 2022

:clown_face: will not be relocked

2 Likes

I do agree on that more can be done on the PR side of things. I honestly found out about Storj just pure coincidence when looking through HashBackup’s supported destinations (which is already buried deep in the list).

I don’t think any major companies would be willing to experiment their data on such a new concept, but perhaps more small scale operations might be willing to take a look at it? Think towards small business/personal storage needs.

With that said, we should be expanding the number of platform integrations/mentionings hard. Storj is S3 compatible already, so there’s barely any technical work required for this. Storj should reach out to all kinds of platform and use cases such as data backup solutions. Storj can start by reaching out to all platform vendors mentioned on B2’s already integrated platforms.

Apart from PR, I’m not a SNO (yet…?) but perhaps there’s something that we can do about the over-supply of storage?

Update 1:
Was looking into hosting my own platform for surveillance cameras (because of recent Ring’s scandal), and found out Kerberos supports storing their video footage on S3 compatible buckets.

Again, I really think Storj should be pushing hard for its publicity.

On that screenshot I see 5 addresses. On the blockchain only 4. Looks like tranche H has been moved: TokenTimelock | Address 0x597D98cbe427B4470e1E9216cfa431c773e9ec98 | Etherscan

We are reading all posts, and this is a proposal, not an announcement, so it can be adjusted.

9 Likes

Not relocked. Tokens have been moved to Storj Multisig 1 and one hour later 20M STORJ have been transfered again to another wallet for “other” or undefined transfers (27 transfers, 14.6M STORJ in total).

If you follow some interesting transfers:

Inflow


Outflow

It seems they are dumped in binance :clown_face: CZ in the loop

Edit: running on chain data analysis

imagen

With proposed pricing it will be automatically,

1 Like