hi @Knowledge , I missed the live because of timezone difference, but I have a question here. Assume that I’m a big business who are using AWS S3 for all my products, my data is very huge. Does Storj have any migration process and/or experts that will help me to migrate from my old cloud provider to Storj so I won’t have to do it myself? If Storj does have it then how much does it cost?
Thank you,
This is completely off topic. If you are genuinely interested in knowing then fill the form on this page.
Lol I’m not a real big business. Just an assumption to know how Storj currently handle the migration from big cloud provider. It’s not an easy process so if you want a big customer to move then you must help them to do it.
Hey guys,
I want to add my 2 cents 
First I am really happy that there is a proposal to discuss about and not a simple announcement like it was with hold back payments because of high transaction fees in the past.
Everyone knows that there will be the time where the Payout Structure for SNOs will change. It’s simple math. It’s maybe a little earlier caused by the Crypto-Winter, but it was clear it would come the time.
To be honest it’s painful and I did not think that it will be such a dramatic change, but the biggest aim has to be that the company will survive and grow.
——
I Real love the idea of Storj and I support the project for years. I have listened to the Twitter-Space and to be honest Im really disappointed.
I think the most important think its trust. And how can we trust you if there are „other“ costs which are nearly 20 times higher than the costs for the core of the network, the SNOs?
What is about the „other“-costs? You did not answer this question in the twitter-space nor somewhere else.
And this is what makes me very skeptical about the future.
Why do you cut the costs for the SNOs so dramatically although the sum you can save is only a fraction of the costs you can possibly save with „Other“?
I don’t say that Story is a Scam, but why are you guys so intransparent?
———
Below my Numbers:
Nodes: 35
Storage Allocated: 300TB
Storage used: 135TB
Costs:
Energy: 100€ / Month;
IPs/Bandwith: 200€ / Month
Efficiency: 1,5W/TB → Heading towards 1W/TB in the Future if prices/payouts makes expansion possible.
Overall I need to get 1€/TB to work without a Loss.
———
And I simply don’t get the argument with to high storage demand and to much nodes. It simply doesn’t matter because you get paid for USED Storage not for allocated Storage. So there could be 100.000 Nodes.
What’s the problem with several IPs and Nodes? It’s not forbidden. And the Network won’t be able to scale without „bigger“ SNOs.
Best wishes
This is answered above…
Your other linked ‘other’ questions are all related to the same.
They’re a business. You’re a supplier. They’re under no obligation to open everything to you but choose to engage and share as much as they can.
No sorry, I have read all other Posts. It isnt answered. Wether in the Reports nor here.
Only some assumptions about Edge-Services but no list how the „other“ Point is summed up. Only some phrases.
Maybe its 10% Edge-Services and 90% deducted? I dont know - and I dont want to imply, but it is Not clear.
Sure they dont have to, but it looks some Kind of Strange and for sure a wrong Ratio.
But thats only my opinion.
Man, yes, precisely the one. Imagine that this is very much on this very topic. I am trying my best in every post here. As for this particular one, I am pointing your attention to the fact that there is not even a paper associated with your payout process. Are your financial statements audited at least by any third or second tier auditor? If not how would you like to scale to the airplane sales experience clients if already you got only a few petabytes filled.
Not to mention the way you (I am directing this to you personally) approached this whole subject in this forum with a statement like “Don’t buy anything”. Again, I doubt your knowledge on this particular subject was as limited as you presented it, at least this is how it looks after reading further your elaborations here. My current understanding is that this is a red flag, and you should apologize.
There are several inconsistencies included in your yesterday’s presentation but in general, very broadly speaking all is still fine. However, i) if you jeopardize your relations with storage node operators, you are done. This is your major asset and you still holding the first mover advantage. And ii) if you break the market by implementing “pure competition commodity market” at (even slightly bigger) scale because you think that there is no market pull to justify price increase and your hubris is that you are going to disrupt the object storage market, you are exposing yourself to a huge risk. It seems to look there is no unit economics at the scale of refrigerator size machines (here I mean microprocessors embedded inside), at least not as for now. And again, to use a common word, this is probably because all this is not about kick scooters, there are real humans involved.
I suggest you go online and hire a former strategy consultant, so he will be able to explain to you the basics of market forces as they always been over the centuries. And to sum up, because I am really done with this conversation, how old are you, several years, airplane trips and literally … four racks? 
I copied BrightSilence’s post above, showing an excerpt from the report and linking to the report:
Line 14, “Other,” is reserved to report activity that doesn’t fall into any of the other categories, including, for example, non-routine payments to service providers and carbon offset program payments. As noted above, in Q4 ‘22, 22.5M STORJ tokens were used in payments that included the repurchase of company shares, and general operations and liquidity purposes. To provide additional liquidity for general operations during uncertain economic times and in periods of growth, we also are liquidating a portion of our reserves on non-US exchanges through a partnership, and these flows are disclosed in this line item.
source: STORJ Token Balances and Flows Report: Q4 2022
On the twitter space they mention the split/comparison for the edge service costs versus the SNO costs.
Ok, I dont wann to fight and I Hope you are Right.
I have read the Report. In my opinion its a Lot of „blabla“ and less real numbers/facts in this Point about „other“.
But thats only MY Personal opinion.
If it goes Bad, whats „general operations and liquidity purposes“?
Can be all or nothing, 10% or 90% of the spendings.
Dont get me wrong, they dont have to tell, but especially the Ratio looks some Kind of Strange to me.
Tech stocks / shares have been reaching what is expected to be the bottom.
Storj reallocating funds from their crypto holdings, into shares is a tactical and investment move for the long term success of the company.
without enough shares a company cannot have control over its own direction nor will it be able to sell off shares for further investments in the company.
thus buying back shares at a market low, enables them to sell these same shares when the tech market is booming, also Storj is still not a brand name, so assuming their own success reacquiring shares is a wise move and not really an expense.
as John G clearly stated SNO represent 66% of the expenses StorjLabs spend on a monthly basis, 13% for edge services and then i would assume the rest is office leases, payroll, power costs and coffee expenses.
and you can’t cut back on coffee expenses, then people will really start to panic.!!!
I’m not happy with the numbers as i have made clear, but we also have to keep in mind that storage will keep getting cheaper, supplying online storage is a brutal business and Storj DCS isn’t a brand name yet…
i do think further optimization or extra egress on the network is needed to make it sensible to run a storagenode.
1.25$ total pr TBm with the avg egress of today and assuming the best proposed payouts, is simply to low today… will it be in a year from now… maybe not
it will certainly be closer than it is today, most likely as storage prices continue to drop and disk capacities keep rising and thus indirectly reduce the power cost pr TBm
ofc that does lead into other considerations… like say can the ingress of a storagenode really fill at 24TB or 30TB HDD within the life time of a HDD…
another consideration will be, SSD’s… with SSD’s the power costs get even lower… and SSD prices have been dropping fast, and even today one can get 42TB 2.5" SSD’s
which draws the same power as a HDD and atleast in theory have much better lifespan than a HDD.
i think StorjLabs need to optimize somewhere… or atleast raise the offer alittle bit…
just earning something like 1.5$ pr TBm total is a massive increase from the proposed offer.
because when we subtract expenses which might be 1$ or whatever
then the remaining 0.25 $ going to 0.50 $ would be an increase in the profitability of 100% for SNO’s
and i don’t think its unrealistic for StorjLabs to optimize or otherwise find ways so they can pay us a little bit extra long term…
lets be fair at the payouts we have been having until now… who wouldn’t want to run a storagenode. 100% ROI on the storage used in like a year … it could never last.
Wow, thx for this useful clarification!
Yeah, but I do feel like this should come with a big asterisk. As I’m pretty sure he meant it’s 66% of the expenses directly related to storage and egress. So, the expenses that would scale with traffic. Also, this is prior to the payout reduction. At best we’re gonna get about 40% of what we used to get. This would mean that afterwards storagenode payouts are only 44% of the total costs to store and transfer data. That other 56% sounds mighty big at that point… Lots of work to be done there. Edge services at that point account for 22%.
Dear team, tell me, when are you going to start reducing payments already? In principle, this topic is already quite large, everyone who had something to say - everyone spoke out, they threw ideas at you, expressed their attitude. Hardly anyone will say something new.
Let’s already decide something, do it - we also need to adjust our strategies: either completely leave your project, or think about something, optimize, etc.
The next steps are commented on in the Twitter Space - https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1djGXlAqDOVGZ
The quote towards the end from @john:
“This is all meant to be a proposal and a dialogue to find the right sweet spot to make the network scalable, and so yeah… This is all a really great conversation. The content in the forum, as always, impacts the decisions that Storj makes, and really sets the trajectory for community satellites as we expand the network.
…
I think initially what we wanted to do was find a specific number. Get to that number immediately and then use surge payouts to ease the drawdown over time. And I think what we’ll do is the reverse of that, which is we’ll slowly reduce the rate over time and include surge, or whatever we do, to keep SNOs whole for the foreseeable future. But yeah, the approach to ‘how’ has certainly been impactful and there’s a bunch of analysis going on in terms of some of the ideas; in terms of informing packaging, and looking at some the things we were contemplating; and accelerating some of the packing and pricing decisions to see if we can test market … value added services. So a lot of discussion about it, but really the conversation with the forum has driven… like really it is a much more partner focussed approach to take. For us to say ‘let’s find other options concurrently with making these reductions’, versus just making the reductions. Then finding those balance points at a more leisurely pace. So I think it’s accelerated efforts on the Storj side to find things that were ?wasteful? and to be more thoughtful on the timeline.”
There was also more about a specific timescale for Storj posting of a follow-up to the proposal but I don’t have time to scan the Twitter space for it now.
This discussion would not have taken place,
if John wouldn’t just disrespectfully said in the 1st post, that:
“we are proposing reducing the amounts paid to nodes for storage and egress.”
Just say (and do) You are not reducing anything?
You are shifting payment emphasis from egress to storage,
but the payouts stays roughly the same,
just the SNOs will have to give more bandwidth,
in order for STORJ to survive, and to prosper at scale.
It’s just that simple.
This whole topic would not be necessary,
days of reading and emotions saved for everyone.
is there a trial to defend against the charges raised?
You accused me of things, being not constructive. (here)
Just in my defense.
Whole my time here is constructive, dedicated for You to succeed, charge free.
im SNO from the start of v3 in summer of 2019,
im provoking to show different perspetives. im not a troll.
Finding ways to Your attetnion, that touches emotions, not just logic brain,
Getting Your attention, and makes You think from new perspectives,
and that’s what You really need, to be able to see from every perspective,
to be able to make the best decisions.
For best results, You need true.
And if some part is not true, then school me, no problem.
im sorry it’s unpleasant, but what exactly there is not true?
(And if there’s any too hard trues, not allowed.)
What’s the “troll” parts in it? emoticones?
whithout them it’s just normal serious post as it’s many here.
Who’s to judge it’s not constructive? Just bluntly put.
but You probbaly needed good hear out.
and good it happend now, than later.
Because You got first serious hear out from community,
so You can get in touch better with us,
im just pointing, STORj has no arguments to charge customers as much as currently ($4/$7).
If it’s so good, why customers don’t think so for over 3 and half years?
Altho, You are the leaders, choose the right moment, and just charge less and less for bandwidth, and pay SNOs fair for stored TB
and we, the SNOs will support You, so we can grow together.
@Knowledge
You don’t have to respond, i don’t want to take space,
But how You would expect me to say it to You?
If after all this, John and crew, on live podcast
assures everyone several times, that they read forum,
and right after that, they drop the bomb
that SNOs was paid too much, and need payout reductions,
and make deposits, and what humiliation else?
while themselves at the executive top level,
how big cuts in payout they prepare for themselves?
because They seems to be detouched,
They think the product is so good etc.
But customers doesn’t thinks so.
Then They come and say to Theirs SNOs arrogant things,
Expect to get punched BACK as hard.
“In what business You guys succeeded before,” may look off topic at most,
but it’s not,
it’s reference to what was said in the thread.
implication, so we don’t repeat literally what was said,
for You any more, but make You discover that anew.
Here implication is, that successful businesses,
search to make prices less and less for customers, not higher.
To get more and more customers, to take over the market.
STORJ is just a storage, not computing, like others, so nothing too much to price for,
no data security certification like serious customers require.
it’s plenty storage in the market to get some at that price.
Really successful businesses doesn’t play games,
with trying to show themselves as valuable, to justifies not affordable price.
They just represent value, understood right away.
They simply offers a price that inspires awe and enthusiasm.
My favorite quotes are from Henry Ford:
“We have never considered any costs as fixed.
Therefore we first reduce the price to a point where we believe more sales will result.
Then we go ahead and try to make the price.
We do not bother about the costs.
The new price forces the cost down.” — Henry Ford
He also said the public should always be amazed how a quality product is made so affordable.
That was his way. And that’s why Toyota is successful, because of Ford’s philosophy.
And so Tesla followed.
Because they know there’s no time to play games, when comes to how fast they should take the market.
Others, try to convince because, they are not good enough to offer the best deal, and just loose time for everyone.
Secondly:
“We are thinking about some deposits instead”
What deposits?
Deposits of effort to setup up things, and resources of space and bandwidth people make right off the start?
A legit question.
What deposits?
I’m pointing out.
It’s disrespectful to demand some deposits from a man,
who just put effort to make a setup, and has just allocated he’s resources to You,
so You can start making profits.
He also want to make profits, or he wouldn’t be doing it in first place.
And You want deposits from him? for what?
In fear he will leave the network, while he is making money?
Wheres the logic?
it’s again a reference, the idea is to not want any deposits,
if SNO want to quit, let him get reward for gracefull exit,
related to the amount he stores.
The more he stores, the bigger the reward.
This way, You can decide,
You don’t even want to give any rewards at some point,
if You will trust in Your repair process at given moment,
and if repair traffic will be just normal and common, free of charge it should be.
in every SNOs interest is to keep the network, in best possible shape.
if it feeds him.
Just check and exclude malicious nodes, as with everything, everywhere…
And in STORJ best interest is to take care about its SNOs.
Not to put some roadblocks up, in form of a deposit off the start, come on.
Let it be easy to join and be a SNO.
Not a fear approach, but thrive and prosper.
“One of the greatest discoveries a person makes, one of their great surprises, is to find they can do what they were afraid they couldn’t do.” — Henry Ford
What else? a ICO money isn’t true?
Was there scams that gathered more than STORJ? there was.
Or not a scam, but questionable EOS,
gathered 4000 million dollars, 4000, that’s 4 billion. With a b.
A cat jumping on household appliances vs, no cats in data centers?
I saw with my own eyes, at a friend’s house,
a cat jumped and lay down on a computer,
which was mining eth and monero, because it was warm there.
Not gonna happen in data centers.
Also that topic when people post their nodes photos,
in open forum, i don’t think it looks good for passersby or
potential customers who don’t understand how it works.
It just fuels it’s prejudices. It’s in home, but it’s working,
Just should come at better price.
I only wish You the best.
Take care.
Yes we will make sure we let everybody know when we have made a decision regarding changes to payouts as well as details around what the transition will look like. We understand the desire to gain clarity quickly, but we don’t want to make a hasty decision. So we will continue to communicate and iterate to find a balanced approach that means all the goals and constraints that are being faced.
Brightsilence - you’re absolutely right that there is a lot of effort to reduce COGS across the board to get to scalable unit economics.
This includes engineering work, pricing and packaging, sourcing, partnerships and a wide range of workstreams. This is not something that can (or should) be solved with just a reduction in SNO costs.
We are continuing to take in the feedback and will get more responses published in the forum and also a more concrete set of next steps.
Thank you for the ongoing feedback and recommendations.
Thanks @john . The twitter space was really informative and it was good to see many of you have been reading this topic and taking the feedback to heart. The people who claimed nobody reads these messages were even referenced by Storj. 
As for the costs you did include when saying 66% was SNO payouts and 13% was edge services. Could you elaborate a little more about the remaining 21%? I’m guessing part of that is partner revenue share and satellite operation costs and repair. What else is on that list? And what proportions are they? And even if possible, what is the estimate per TB broken down by egress and storage?
