I think it’s worth talking about increasing payments for node operators due to dollar inflation.
Reasonable prices are $1.65 for storage, $11 for recovery and $22 for outgoing traffic. This seems to cover inflation for 2019-2022. The same indexing should be done annually 
4 Likes
And even in this case, there can be no question of profit
It also posible to bet, on storage price, so cheaper will get more data, more expencive will gell rest of data with bigger price. then it will go to equilibrium.
But that adds a lot of complexity and uncertainty for customers. If they can’t plan ahead what they will have to pay for storage in the next n months because they always have to bid with each upload, customers might stay away from STORJ.
2 Likes
who told that customers will pay like this, they will pay stable price.
but storj laps can get better price like this.
We have a reoccurring twitter space, an opportunity to speak to Storj staff directly. The next one is next week. We invite you to attend and/or post your questions in this forum thread.
6 Likes
I have to admit, the price drop is a little bigger than I anticipated, but it’s still okay for me, I explain.
- For me being an SNO’s is more of a hobby than a source of income.
- Electricity costs… I am lucky to have access to cheap electricity. In addition, I have to heat during the winter, and for me, if this heat comes from a hard drive or an electric heater, it’s the same thing. So, 6 months a year, I can consider that running my node is “free” regarding electricity.
- Decentralization… I think this price drop will help a lot because I feel like a few “people” are running a lot of nodes using VPNs to get around the /24 limitation.
5 Likes
it is impossible to get more traffic with HDD.
Necessary use of SSD, which in turn further increases the accumulated costs
For example what Sia tried to prevent: That nodes advertise cheap prices to lure customer into contracts and then increase prices for download. So if a customer uploads data future downloads prices would need to be fixed and enforced.
However I must admit that generally the idea of a marketplace where you can set your prices as SNO is appealing.
2 Likes
Most SNOs here to make money. My goal 1,5-2,5k a month. that i can spend 500$ a month for repear/upgrade. pay for internet/ electricity, taxes. with new prices it is very hard to achive this state almost imposible.
5 Likes
(post deleted by author)
(don’t want to participate in this discussion because posts are deleted without notice)
Long time SNO for just 1 node here (16.8TB used). I started it for fun back in the day when you would receive individual monthly payments from each satellite and there was no minimum for payout. I remember getting my first payout for $0.003 and thinking if I could get to $1/day it would be ‘worth it’.
My node runs on existing hardware so it’s hard for me to quantify the ongoing running cost. If I was running a node just for Storj then I would be in the same boat as others… wondering whether it’s worth continuing. As it is I’ve always had free space available and have continued to expand so my node always has free space. Last month I had a payout of just over $42.
I don’t have a definitive answer on if or when I would GE but everyone has a line somewhere in the sand.
3 Likes
I am happy with the proposed payments. I’ll keep with it down to $0.50 per TB per month and then below that it’s run until fail support only
4 Likes
Isn’t the repair process supposed to take some time?
I think that the median healthy pieces can’t jump instantly like that.
Looks like a bug to me. I will escalate that one. Thank you for letting us know.
5 Likes
If anyone is wondering whos making all the money running storagenodes you can kinda see why storj wants to cut prices back…Not really sure how maybe storj needs to audit and make sure theres not some kinda exploit going on.
2 Likes
I read almost everything that is written here, cheers 
First of all, thanks to everyone for the discussion and to the STORJ management for trying to agree on future prices.
Since I don’t understand who needs such volumes from business clients and why they shouldn’t take a promotional offer from hetzner … I came to the conclusion for myself that I need to ask to immediately completely disable test traffic and publicly give information about the amount of test volume stored on the nodes .
Everyone writes about clients, everyone writes about tariffs, but we all don’t understand (we guess / interpret in our own way) how much space and what channel bandwidth is really needed. Any value will be a “spherical horse in a vacuum” if it is synthetic data.
My suggestion:
- immediately completely disable synthetic traffic and data (Synthetics is misleading and simply loads the Internet, disks and SNO - gives the illusion of growth)
- add information for SNO about how much test data they have on the node in order to understand whether it is necessary to expand or, if necessary, the test data will be deleted and replaced with useful information
- Publish information about the amount of test data in the network - a general report.
Then we will all understand whether we are doing something useful, our disks are occupied by millions of files just for the sake of temporary income, or is it a real benefit and real self-employment in order to generate income for which you can invest, suffer, etc.
4 Likes
The satellites for test data are US-2, Europe-North and Saltlake:
https://storjstats.info/
4 Likes
They already can run their own gateway, yes. But I didn’t necessarily mean run it themselves, but just have them pay for it separately. Storj can maybe negotiate some volume discounts for their customers to make it cheaper than when customers have to run it in the cloud themselves. But in some scenarios, customers can run a gateway on premise for free. But why would they if they could use the hosted gateway for free as well.
Careful what you wish for. This tends to lead to a race to the bottom in prices. You’re competing against people who run on hardware they have online already. On my NAS I would keep dropping the prices until I get data. To be honest, I don’t think that model would do node operators any favors.
I’m running both internal nodes on always online hardware as well as external HDD’s that only run for Storj. So with my internal nodes I’m in the same boat as you. My question is not so much whether I would exit those… I doubt I would. But whether I could still afford to expand when they fill up. I’m not sure that is still reasonable. Maybe at the $1/$5/$5 payouts, but at the lower limit of this suggestion, I don’t think it would make financial sense to expand anymore.
US2 hosts almost no data though. So I’m sure it’s possible to do it for that one. Might also be a bug as littleskunk mentioned.
The downside to this would be a significant drop in payouts for the most loyal long time nodes. While I agree in principle, that may not be very good optics right before a payout drop.
This is data from my oldest node for this month so far:
As you can see, test satellites (europe-north, saltlake and less important us2) still account for a significant chunk of payout on that node. Deleting all that data instantly causes a massive drop in payouts. It’s better to do it gradually as suggested in the top post.
As for your point 2 and 3. I still have no reason to believe the split in satellites isn’t a good indication of how much test data is on the network.
2 Likes
I know which satellites are for test, in which folders they are. But I’m not sure that it is “useful” information that comes from other satellites, and not synthetic for checking, accumulating / reserving space, creating an illusion, etc.
I know that you can exit the test satellites, you can delete folders, see their size yourself - but this is all guesswork.
Also guesses that the test data can be proportionally deleted and filled with useful information. We think so, I think it’s possible - but…