It depend on the country where you live.
Worst case instantaneous situation does not translate into a prolonged level of gas fees. It probably would have been better to indicate that gas fees are variable and hit a maximum of $4.00 for 20 minutes on Aug 13thâŚ
Hopefully, more people are aware of Ethereum gas price fluctuations, and didnât read the quoted cost as a hard number as you apparently have.
I fully agree with you but Iâm just reporting what Brandon a storjiling say in this link, if you donât agree talk with him, he his the one saying:
Part of the reason we are considering this change is that just last week the cost for a single transaction was around $4.00 USD. Unfortunately, this is not scalable; we do over 5k transaction per month so that would end costing around 20k for a monthâs payout cycle. Over half of those transactions are for less than $10 USD.
My response is already written in post #60
The Storj team began this thread as a good faith post on possible changes to the payout next month based on the perceived trend in gas fees.
And for that, they have my thanks and earned my trust.
3 Likes
Yes thatâs why I suggest using CC the fees donât change.
They screw me with a GE so they lost all my trust, sorry.
1 Like
I understand thatâs the way you feel based on the posts Iâve looked at over the last few months. I would probably feel the same way if I was in your shoes.
However, that issue is not listed on this particular thread. Unfortunately, the data has moved on algorithmically and so thereâs no going back to a prior state.
Online conversations sometimes leave an unfinished sensation. Thatâs most unfortunate.
Running a Storj node seems to be a little like raising a mildly Autistic child⌠I have both of those.
Sometimes, my special needs child has a bad morning - today was one of those - sigh. The best thing is to address immediate needs and then never mention the outburst again. I find that many times I have a harder time letting go of the conflict than my Autistic daughter â who has already moved on to other things in a few minutes.
Thatâs kind of like how I need to approach running a Storj node too. If my node goes belly up, I need to forget that it existed and just start another one.
Mathematically, the second node will pay out nearly the same as the first node. The lost funds from DQ of node 1 will be minor (I didnât believe it either - but I checked the math)⌠almost not noticeable⌠if I only consider the USD value of the total payout.
1 Like
If that were true, I donât think there is any real reason to just use storj token, one can achieve the same purpose by sending Bitcoin or ETH, and also you say:
so you can send any coin amount calculated in USD, doesnât care about the coin price fluctuation.
But I think storj token should have more utility, it should tightly integrate into the system by design, to solve real problem, not just for simplify the payments. For example, in this case, we can use storj token as a collateral, to solve the âtoo soon to disqualifiedâ issue.(If it really can)
Iâm not mean âbuying reputationâ, I mean âstake the token as a collateralâ. you couldnât buy reputation, but you can stake tokens to proof you are a good actor, not a bad actor(because bad actor doesnât want to stake so long.)
If you withdraw tokens, you lose that proof, but that doesnât mean you have low reputation, you can still have high reputation while get disqualified for some reason. For example, you can sell your high reputation machine to a bad actor, but you definitely not sent your collateral tokens to the buyer. So if the buyer want to use that machine to do something bad, he must stake tokens, either through buy or borrow, and stake for a long time, but that is not affordable.
In this way, the system have incentive to normal operators, and avoid bad operators.
The STORJ token is not investment and not designed for staking. The only purpose - pay for the Storj DCS service and receive payout for rented out storage and bandwidth.
Yes, and we do exactly that when we send payout to Storage Node Operators.
When the customer pay for the service in STORJ tokens, we converts STORJ to USD and add the USD amount to the customerâs balance with 10% bonus.
We doesnât use STORJ tokens as a collateral, your node accumulates held amount in USD to cover repair costs if data would be lost and node disqualified.
Hi!
After reading a singificant part of this thread I still need to ask the same question: Why did Storj Labs decide to use STORJ token?
Iâm not saysing it should be changed (I think itâs working good as is now and there is no need to change for now). Iâm just asking:
What made Storj Labs decision makers decide that creating a dedicated utility token should be used?
I got the points that using a token is more âagileâ than using USD. If I understand it well, Storj Labs wanted a way to pay SNO without volatility (at least at the time of payout). Thatâs why earnings are in USD and then converted in STORJ at the time of payout.
But, shouldnât have it be easier to just use a stablecoin for this purpose? It brings agility in payment process and would have avoided to âreinvent the wheelâ (meaning a new token).
Where do you get the stablecoin from?
1 Like
Storj token was free to generate. Using an.establoshed token would have cost money. Also, there was/is interest in smart contracts and tying that to the storage features, but as of now that has not been implemented and may never be. The interest may have waned as the project changed from v2 to v3.
1 Like
Thanks.
I donât get it.
Implementing something new is never really free. Developers worked on it, people had to review it to make sure it is secure, and so on. Implementing a payment layer based on DAI would have avoided that. Sure, there is some technical risk (some flaws may be discovered later), but that is true for STORJ token too.
Plus, Iâm not sure about what you mean when you say âfreeâ. I suppose you donât mean that it allows you to create STORJ token out of thin air, because it could create serious financial issues. Sure Storj Labs is able to create any amount of tokens they want, but this should be done very carefully and Iâm sure STORJ is doing things right (Iâm not trolling here, I mean it).
From an exchange. So yes you have to buy it.
But generating âfree moneyâ (money backed by nothing, out of thin air) is not a viable model (monetary creating from banks and central banks is something very specific and a âabilityâ only granted to them).
This model could work for Storj, but it would mean that STORJ token value is indeed (or should) correlated and based to the business vaalue of service provided by Storj, which several people in this thread seem to disagree with.
So if Storj value is not tied to Storj business service value neither fiat value, then⌠what?
Let me try to explain why I think STORJ token is better than using a stablecoin.
In my opinion, STORJ value is indeed based on a mix of Storj service business value AND speculation:
- Storj service business value: getting STOR tokens now (by being paid as a SNO or by buying them) allows you to pay for Storj service (storage) later, even with a discount. So yes, STORJ value is based on this service quality. If tomorrow, STORJ announces that they stop the service or that there are some serious technical flaws, the price should drop because of that.
- speculation: there are 2 types of speculation. One is based on fundamental analysis and the other may be based of âtechnical (financial) analysisâ.
- fundamental criteria: some investors may expect the service will be even better in the future and then people will buy more STORJ tokens to access the service (even if itâs also available in USD, you get more by paying in STORJ), which will make the price higher.
- technical analysis: some people may just analywe demand / offer for the token and expect the price will be higher later (for whatever reason, even unrational reasons). Old STORJ token (SJC or soemthing, sorry I forgot) price is only based on purely speculative behaviour, nothing is rational here because this tokens has absolutely 0 utility, neither 0 intrinsic value (it doesnât allow to buy a service or a good, it doesnât generate revenue, etc.).
That explanation would be good for me. Because paying SNO with STORJ allows Storj company to generate some kind of âdebtâ: provide Storj ecosystem with free storage and we will gove you a promise that youâll be able to buy some in the future (thatâs what a coin is, even paper-based US dollar or euro: a debt, because if you give it to some merchant, it has to provide a service).
But it means that STORJ token value is related to Storj business. Thatâs why I dont understand why people say it is not.
Right, so Storj Labs cannot sell a speculative investment asset such as a coin. They cannot buy something and sell it to you with the promise that it will go up or down in value. That would be a violation of US law.
Storj Labs created a utility token, and sold it for a fixed price with no promises of gain or loss. Since the token had no prior history, speculation would be something only the buyer could do, not the business.
Storj Labs and its associated employees and contractors, therefore, do not view Storj Token as having any investment value. It is a commodity, like selling you a pair of socks. If you want to hang on to the socks and sell them later at a gain or loss, that is your choice. Storj Labs is not part of that process.
The company has a legal team and a lot of this was managed from the very start until now to make sure everything the company has done was lawful.
This is also why, moving away from the token, or using other tokens, can be difficult and expensive. Not impossible, but it is not something on the roadmap.
Further, staff and contractors avoid discussing token value in general as to avoid anyone taking anything we say as investment advice. It is not.
1 Like
Storj currently holds 221 million STORJ tokens. I think they could afford a bit of development work with that. There was also no need to reinvent the wheel. The ERC20 standard was well established, so itâs not like they had to write all original code for the token.
Not anymore, the smart contract doesnât allow for that. But originally⌠yeah, thatâs kind of how it works. You create a one time limited supply, with an ecosystem that uses it and offer it on the market, which then determines the trading value. There is a lot more involved than that, but if they would have used existing unrelated tokens they would have had to buy them instead of starting with a large reserve.
They are not. There is a limited supply as defined in the smart contract and nobody is able to change that. Once their reserves are gone, they will have to buy tokens back from the market. Which is a good thing, because nobody would trust the value of any token if one party was essentially able to create a limitless supply.
The reason for this is that Storj doesnât say that 1TB of storage costs X amount of Storj. If that were the case, the token value would be tied to the product value. But since every payment and payout is exchanged from a fixed USD value, the Storj token value can float around independently. Itâs base purely on market supply and demand for the token, not the product value or the company value.
Itâs only tangentially related to product demand because if customers want to get the 10% discount, they will need Storj tokens. But at the moment it is questionable whether that is significant enough to impact token value.
Except Storj Labs doesnât guarantee you can buy any specific amount of their services with it. That would be like me saying to you that I offer you 1000 BS Bucks as a proof of debt, but you have no idea what BS Bucks will be worth by the time you collect. They could become very popular and may become a collectors item. Or, in my case much more likely, nobody cares about them and BS Bucks are without value. If I donât promise you anything solid for a specific amount of BS Bucks, their value is purely dictated by market supply and demand, which can scale based on anything any token holder or potential token holder wants to factor into its value. Including a lot of things that have nothing to do with me. (I would guess the name BS Bucks wouldnât help either, haha)
Now itâs naive to say there will be no relation to Storj DCS success and the token value. But right now that may well be more dictated by brand exposure than customer demand for the token. The point is that it doesnât directly represent product value (like a fixed GB amount of storage) or company value (like a share). Itâs just a utility token to facilitate transactions. And the rest is up to the market.
Thanks for the explanation.
English is not my native language so I may have issue to share my opinion.
I got it. Iâm not saying that Storj is distributing an investment product. Though, as you say, some people may speculate on the value of this commodity (such as they could speculate on the price of socks, even if it is not a investment product by definition). Indeed Storj is absolutely out of this process. I agree with that we are on the same page.
Indeed. I said Iâm not asking why not changing. Iâm just trying to understand the reasons of the decision. I like how youâre doing business, this is just pure curiosity.
Storj is an utility token (because it allows you to do something / to buy something with it). Thatâs why Iâm saying the value of the token is tied to the targeted utility (I make a difference between price -which is dictated by an offer/demand game - and value, which is what you get from something). Even if 1 STORJ today may not allow to get the same utility in 1 year, it is designed to allow you to get storage space.
My point is: DAI allows you to do the same thing.
But youâretelling me STORJ is free to generate (which is right and Iâm OK with that). But, on the economic point of view, when the first SNO has been paid in STORJ, where the STORJ value came from? I donât see any other answer than: from the utility it has, i.e. : storage space.
Even if the utility is very volatile, it is tied to it (such as pair of socks price is dictated by the value and by the offer/demand).
Letâs imagine a situation.
Storj Labs announces it is no more possible to buy storage with STORJ.
I suppose SNO will not want to be paid in STORJ. Who would reasonably think that is has value since you canât do anything with it and it is not backed by any other forms of asset
(Iâm not talking about people who just trade tokens without knowing anything about them just because they are going down or up)?
If nobody see a value, who would want to buy it?
And if nobody wants to buy it, you canât sell it as a SNO, except if Storj Labs buy them from you. Which is the same result as paying SNO in DAI (or any other stablecoin).
That is why Iâm saying that STORJ intrinsic value (not price) is based on its utility: buying some storage space. Then, speculation gives him a higher price but that is out of your scope/your business.
Some questions to let me understand better:
- when STORJ were generated rhe first time, did you have to get an official authorization (I know how easy it is to technically generate a new token, I already did it) to use it as a payment method for your suppliers (=SNO)?
- if so, didnât you have to prove some that you have some assets or somrthing?
But now youâre conflating the socks with the storage product. But 8n this analogy the socks are the tokens, NOT the storage product. So what youâre actually saying is that the price of the token is dictated by the value of the token and by the offer/demand. Which is an obvious tautology and thus true.
But the price of socks is not determined by the value of the company making them. And even if you can trade socks against other goods, you would only be able to get an equivalent usd value of goods based on the socks value at the time of that trade. Then again the value of socks is not determined by the value of the goods you can trade them for.
I hope that makes sense. I feel like that last paragraph got a little convoluted.
The analogy can even be extended a little. If the exact same socks carry a popular brand logo, the intrinsic value of socks doesnât get any higher, but the perceived value of consumers might go up. And in a free market that still means the price of socks may go up as well, despite there being no additional value. In the same way you could argue that the STORJ token carries the Storj brand and may go up in perceived value when that brand becomes better known.
Honestly, I donât know if this is helpful. If not you can just tell me to shut up. 
Disclaimer: Just to be very clear again, I love this project, the company and the way they are doing business by including SNO as partners. Iâm just trying to understand something not clear to me.
Yes it is helpful and I absolutely donât want you to shut up! I like discussing this topic, even though I suspect I have difficulty to explain my idea. This is a economics theory discussion about: how to determine the value of an asset, especially an utility token. The discussion is not simple, and even better in english for me 
Actually, I think in this analogy described by @Knowledge, the STORJ token refers to the socks:
What I donât get is: how can we say that STORJ token value is not tied to its utility if itâs not tied to another asset (such as fiat or something)?. It would mean that SNO are paid by something which is valuless? Something paid âout of thin airâ? I canât believe that.
By that definition so is fiat. Itâs worth whatever people are willing to trade it for. But I think the difference in what you and I are saying is one of nuance. Since there is no fixed exchange rate between the token and the service, it doesnât represent the value of the service. But with success of the ecosystem it is mainly used in, demand will likely go up and so will price. So they are probably correlated in some way. Perhaps thatâs a better way to describe it. To me the word tied implies a fixed relation rather than âbeing influenced byâ.
And btw, you shouldnât worry about your English language skills. It seems to me your comprehension and expression of your ideas on a rather complex subject is well above that of many native English speakers.
Edit: Also, itâs worth mentioning that regulations make it a lot harder for Storj Labs representatives to say certain things about the token. Which is likely why you will see them say clearly that the token doesnât represent the value of the company or the product, but not see them acknowledge that there still likely is a correlation. As that would suggest that it is an indirect way of investing in a speculative asset that represents the success of the company, which could get them into hot water with the SEC. It kind of sucks because it would be nice to get more of their perspective on this, but their hands are tied. So parts of this discussion are up to independent parties like us to make sense of.
2 Likes
Yes. But a fiat money value is a matter of trust. Value of fiat money is based on the trust that its users (consumers) have in it to be accepted by other merchants as a means of payment. If you canât buy anything with it or if a lot of merchants stop accepting it, the fiat money will quickly deprecriate.
Regarding STORJ, itâs âworth whatever people are willing to trade it forâ, I agree with that. But people (rational economic agents) wonât see any value in it if you canât buy anything with it (such as US dollar or euro would be worthless if merchants stopped accepting tomorrow).
Thanks a lot 
.
Thatâs that kind of interesting discussions that make this Storj community (and then Storj project) so valuable.