i clearly remember the days when SNOs laughed at StorjLabs for their high prices and then compared Storj to Backblaze so much so that they convinced StorjLabs to lower their prices.
so we can blame them for being stupid enough to listen to us 
just another example in why demagogy is a bad idea lol
also if memory serves the edge services was a very similar deal, people was complaining about not getting enough bandwidth because of the expansion factor.
I don’t want to fight about what is the right price but just want to correct the assumptions, because I think thats missing important factors.
Backblaze is just $5 in one datacenter and one copy. If you want redundancy like a second copy in a differend datacenter it doubles. It’s already priced in with Storj.
Also AWS Glacier IR is $4 but retrieval costs ~$30/TB. And you pay for at least 90Days even if you already deleted the files. It’s just plain backup/archive.
I would like to suggest STORJ to cancel Escrow blocking for those nodes that are less than 1 year old. Still, people started working at the same prices, and now they will have to maintain nodes at a loss in order to get the blocked funds. At the very least, a one-time unblocking of Escrow when changing the payout model would be an honest step towards the community.
I never understood this part. It must be really expensive to run. I’m not sure how this part can be profitable. I wonder what the egress costs for this really are (Wich would apply for transfers in both directions).
Thank you. @BrightSilence has said that Storj gets $4 per TB for storage so already $1 up. If you read my earlier posts you’ll see that I say don’t alter the customer pricing for ingress and egress. so they will make the extra from that. whether its enough I’m not sure but someone maybe able to answer this. Again there is only love in my posts please educate me if I’m wrong.
First, let the big profitable nodes continue to node.
Second, offer a free “community edition” for smaller nodes for private groups to share resources and essentially create their own private shared pool of storage.
As someone who has been around in this community a long time and has had lengthy conversations here with people from Storj and many of my suggestions implemented into the product, I can assure you this statement is completely false. Why do you think a COO would take time out of their busy day to ask for feedback if they intend to then ignore it? How does that make sense?
It doesn’t help that you keep repeating the same things everywhere. Including things that others and me have already mentioned why it wouldn’t be possible or a good idea. Yet you don’t seem to have adjusted your suggestions. I wonder who isn’t reading?
As some have mentioned, depending on your power costs, it is possible to earn with these new numbers. However, that means nodes have to have data. Part of this, as John mentioned, is to reduce supply. Unprofitable nodes go offline. That’s the only way you really reduce supply. Their lost data will be added to the nodes that remain online.
I don’t know how much synthetic data versus customer data there is. However, I think we can assume that there is quite a bit of synthetic data, and if it is reduced as new customer data is added, we may have flat growth for a while after any initial repairs from unprofitable nodes. It might inspire people to spin up new nodes to capture new customer data, and not lose synthetic data, since only old nodes would suffer the loss/gain while new nodes would gain. If there was a way to prevent synthetic data from being repaired, it might reduce the impact when any nodes go dark.
Maybe a farewell airdrop for SNO could smooth out their sadness?
They usually read the report, the summary, not the whole long thread. And you know sometimes people only write things they want to hear in a report. You guys had a very long discussion in the Node Operator thread. Then what? The suggested price in this “proposal” post is even lower than what people have discussed in that old thread. Which mean they don’t give a f*ck about what we said (including you). If they really read then they just…don’t care.
I have respect for you bro. I’ve seen you around since the beginning of this forum. I was silent the whole time but the situation is hard now, I just want somebody to know what I think, even if they don’t care.
I made the adjustment with some small modifications. By the way the old thread is blocked.
Thank you,
like the coin price is not low enough?
Another option is to introduce collateral for new SNOs, as done in PoS cryptocurrencies, where you can launch your node. More deposit means more percentage of data. For old verified nodes, you can not enter a pledge, but make it mandatory for new ones. This will support the price of the token and solve the problem of a large number of participants.
With the kind of price proposed what you are basically saying is that SNO will be volunteers giving you time, resources and electricity, loosing money in the process and that you hope making a revenue from it?
Trying to get rid of the people that support your business is maybe not the best idea. If you have too much node, why let new one come at the first place?
Create a queue list, new people enter in the list and get an invitation when a slot open.
Thank you @BrightSilence.
I will take your suggestion into a consideration, however, please be informed that I have to admit that I do not use Twitter. Never less, I am sure that you are able to represent the interests of Storge Node Operators (SNOs) during such meetings at an appropriate level. I would like to rise your candidacy for the position of The Managing Director of The Union once again. With great power comes great responsibility thus I would like to suggest that apart to Chief Operation Officer (COO) you should also contact the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Storj Inc. and discuss all those matters that are so vital to us - the SNOs.
Having the opportunity, I would also allow myself to point your attention to all four major competition models and in particular to the model of perfect competition. Especially that it is discussable if such a model is to the interest not only to SNOs but also to Stroj Inc. in general. In addition, I do hope that you will be able to gather additional information and be able to make appropriate assessments directly related to the recent promotion for the free accounts as it seems to be not appropriate to utilize SNOs assets for purposes that do not bring short term returns on investments and seem not to bring any mid to long term economic benefits. Should your assessment lead to a conclusion that current model for the free accounts is not in line with SNOs and Storj interest, I believe the suggestion to immediately adjust Storj’s operations should be delivered both to the COO and CEO with the hope that appropriate actions will be implemented as soon as possible. Throwing good money after bad money should not be taking place for this network. Especially as it directly results in such suggestions as $1.50 => $0.75, $20 => $1.50, $10 => $1.50. We should not be eligible for covering losses resulted from not optimal decisions of Storj Inc. I would also like to suggest for your consideration a deeper analysis of rules governing network expansion, especially the rules governing new SNOs entering the network. This is of a particular interest for current SNOs, the network balance and the Storj token price. Any adjustments in this area, in particular adjustments related to potential restriction placed on new SNOs that try to enter the network in such a sensitive time as now should be raised for a discussion and in-depth analysis. I am referring here to about 2000 nodes entering the network during a period of a few days that took place at the beginning of the year. Such analysis and potential actions restricting such behavior would also make any implementations of compensation adjustments proposed in this very Storji announcement much easier for every SNO currently involved in the network.
I know it is a lot to handle.
I could also sell the drive and earn 5 years of Storj income instantly. (Because if I already have the hardware I might as well sell it - instead of playing to be SNO) You say this like the hardware and time is free… Most of people that showed their calculations here, say they’re not gonna bother running nodes. You also mention that if unprofitable nodes will go offline remaining nodes will get better. They won’t… They will get the data, and that’s it. Once they’re full, it doesn’t matter if the network is growing 0x or 20x - people don’t have infinite storage. I think there’s a good chance the network will choke with not enough storage once it grows. You will fill up node in 1 day, and I will wait 5 years to get money what I need to get more storage. I don’t think this ratio is good…
Or to increase demand … my friend. 
I think that depends on the Egress. If we’ve had a lot of synthetic data that hasn’t been pulled, most SNO’s probably don’t earn a lot of Egress in general. If that data becomes customer data, Egress would likely increase (Depending of course, on what the customer is doing, but I think it’s fair to say the odds of them pulling on the data more than the synthetic data is likely) and so if Egress increases, earnings may be higher than what is expected.
That of course is the question that can’t be answered, how much customer data is there going to be, how many new customers are going to be added, and what are they planning on doing with the data?
The synthetic data probably hurts our overall understanding of what normal ins/outs look like at a customer level. We don’t really know what the earnings would be if we replaced our current node data with pure customer data. Things could look very different. Same with free tier. Due to the transfer limits, a lot of that data is likely just cold storage. It doesn’t work in a SNO’s favor right now.
For me the biggest challenge will be the huge drop in bandwidth payouts, the rack space and internet costs I pay anyway for my server, but the amount your paying for egress is now lower then the cost I have to pay out to my provider.
At my datacenter I pay $10 for every TB of egress on top of my 1TB per month provided free. Ignoring the internet and rack space costs (I eat for my Plex/web server – they use the free 1TB each month) you would be paying me less then my costs. The moment a hard drive goes down, this project will now be burning cash instead of profiting me.
Even if I brought my server into my home instead, my internet plan charges me $20 for unlimited bandwidth: PureFibre overage charges explained | Support | TELUS which makes $5 per TB (if you go the high route) not high enough to make this profitable running from inside my house
This is what I was referring to when writing that we as SNOs should not be eligible for covering losses resulted from not optimal decisions of Storj Inc.
Who knows … maybe they do … LOL