Yeah, the problem usually is that it has a minimum speed and if the server cannot keep up, the tape then is frequently stopped, rewound and started, increasing the wear on the heads and the tape.
Well at least you take care of your own destruction, no competitors needed.
| Egress (per TB) | $20 | $1.50 - $5.00 |
|---|---|---|
| Audit / Repair traffic (per TB) | $10 | $1.50 - $5.00 |
This doesn’t even cover the cost of the traffic, which is roughly at 4$-8$, depending on the country.
Goodbye, bye, bye, bye. Bye, bye, bye.
P.S.: Spoiler, its not so much the SNO side you need to adjust, they’re already underpaid (given you expect any degree of professionalism which is needed to drive costs down in the end), it’s your whole business.
well kevin’s tweet didn’t age well. Power of distributed economics, yay.
1 Like
As you can see it’s still working independent of your predictions.
not for long anymore if you execute your suggestions. you need to increase prices, not decrease payouts. and you’re saying this here even though you are admitting you can’t continue as you are. So you’re confirming I am correct, thanks for that.
ignorance is bliss
1 Like
That was the initial pricing idea:
- Static storage is charged at $10 per terabyte per month
- Download bandwidth is charged at $45 per terabyte
Maybe prices should’ve never been lowered so much as permanent pricing model but more promotion-like for early adopters.
3 Likes
well there are apparently only numb ears around that topic.
There are multiple ways to survive, but economically, they won’t get around increasing the price which is anyways already price dumping. Roughly by at least 1$ more likely 2$ for the storage.
Further they should really consider stop relying only unprofessional players. You can drastically decrease the piece amount, by enforcing stricter standards, with more attractive payouts.
Also the illusion of free traffic, they really think that this is reliable? Suprise it is not. The price of ISPs are not set in stone and they’re based off a mix calculation. This means you basically make assumptions that you can average out the cost across all customers. Otherwise ISP contracts would be way costlier. ISPs can and will adjust costs if that mixed calculations due to providers like storj become unprofitable for them. (or throttle, every ISP I know has a fair use clause allowing them to intervene if they would need to.)
Also the myth about only egress costs anything and ingress doesn’t. That is not true, that is how major cloud players bill yes, but actually you pay on your maximum throughput, which is viewed duplex, so it doesn’t matter if its going in or out.
It’s a fairly well known backup application.
In fact, Storj has it on their site: Guide for Integrating Arq Backup Software with Storj - Storj Docs
No. Not everything is Uber or Amazon. They are in no way comparable. Amazon started as something completely different and tapped into totally new markets. They changed their whole business model twice. Uber is currently not making money, but they are by far the largest taxi provider worldwide. So no, this is in no way comparable to Uber or Amazon but to any other tech start-up. And for a normal start-up, 2y and millions is enough to expect results. And we did get some results. The tech works, but the economics don’t (yet).
Again, what fundamentals have changed in the last two years?
What fundamentals will change in the next two years?
The only economic fundamental that has changed, is electricity prices going up for Europe.
There are at least two I would recommend.
First, Iperius. Very easy to use. Yes there is a free version, but after you try it out, go for the paid version. It’s worth it.
Second,
Check out S3 Browser. This offers a folder sync tool. Very powerful. Though a manual process, it is super fast, and will sync your data to Storj.
Both make use of S3 protocols. I strongly recommend setting up your own S3 endpoint. Storj has a great tutorial. It took me about 10 mins to setup. I run this on my storj node.
2 Likes
This looks interesting. They also have this:
Storj should contact them for native integration.
3 Likes
The token price doesn’t matter, when you pay for the service in STORJ tokens, they are converted to USD on sent date and added to your balance with 10% bonus.
All calculations are made in USD, include storagenode’s payout, STORJ just an utility token to make money transfer simpler, they are not securities and not shares.
2 Likes
The price, or rather the volatility matters in case someone wants to do anything other than convert from some other currency to STORJ tokens and immediately pay for the service, which would be rather inconvenient. Even for a node operator who also uses the service, for the token price to really not matter, he would have to immediately sell the tokens after receiving the payout, then (possible later) buy some of them back to pay for the service.
1 Like
Yes, there are many S3-compatible backup solutions like the same restic (if you configure the underlaying rclone to use S3 integration instead of native), HashBackup, Comet, HyperBackup, and so on.
And you are correct, that you always can run a Self-hosted S3-compatible Gateway (Gateway-ST) to still have a native integration while using S3 protocol.
You may also configure to use a Storj deposit address from your Storj DCS account as a wallet address in the storagenode’s configuration (but disable zkSync, since the deposit address doesn’t support zkSync yet). In this case there is almost no change in a value.
1 Like
And Storj needs to find a way to make them integrate uplink natively rather than S3. They most likely do S3 anyway not for Storj but for Amazon, Backblaze and Wasabi, so they are likely lazy. But if gateway usage would come at a higher price it would put some pressure on developers when their users have to pay higher prices than they would have to.
So maybe developer should receive higher revenue share when they do native integration and S3 gateway usage should come at higher prices than native usage.
1 Like
You may use S3 Browser right now, either with a Storj-hosted S3-compatible Gateway (Gateway-MT) or with a Self-hosted S3-compatible Gateway.
If you need to mount a bucket as a folder or disk you may also use:
- s3fs
- rclone mount (it’s already has a native integration, but you may use the S3 protocol as well)
- Mountain Duck
I personally second that.
Since there is no way to configure two wallet addresses on the node and I don’t think it is possible to withdraw tokens from the DCS account, this would only work if what I use on DCS costs about the same as what I get for running the node. If my node gets $50/month and I need to pay, say, $5/month, then it does not work that well, unless I change the wallet address on my node every few months.
And if they pay you double again or you don’t get paid for whatever reason then your problems start.
Directing your payouts directly to a wallet address that you cannot control and where you cannot withdraw sounds like a bad idea.
I have to agree, however many SNO doing so
but with exchange’s deposit address.
And I would not do so for the Storj DCS deposit address, but you can do so. I mention just a possibility and how to avoid problems if you would use zkSync.
Please do not consider it as a suggestion 
it doesn’t matter because Storj Labs can use the token sale reserves with no restrictions.
That’s why the company doesn’t matter the token price (until the token reserves are gone).