The amount of tokens that I have received is much lower than last month. Next week I will make time to learn more about this.
Can you share your node ID and the amounts?
I believe a lookup tool like they had for v2 is on the short list of tasks. My payments about match what was expected, with a payment for each node. Many are expressing that they are confused on why they were a few percent short. We don’t know yet, perhaps some resource calculation or uptime discrepancies.
farm ID = 753
The amount of tokens I have received for March = 3166.83, for February it was 518,123 + 4354,64
The amount of token you received is what it should of been for March according to the resources the explorer shows you have online and the simulator. I only see one farm online, is that correct? Double check the resources it says you have online.
yes, one farm is online. I am gonna check on Monday if the server has been offline during the month March.
I really wish they would mention node number with the TFT they send to our wallets. That way we could see what node made how much TFT. I have 9 nodes but have received 21 small payments. The total is less than what I calculated with the online calculator.
On the contrary, my farm is printing and my calcs showed validating more of a service to the grid than a profit puppy.
My point is, I would like to verify how the farming rewards have been calculated for the amount that was paid out, so I can check what uptime was used for the calculation, number of compute and storage units etc…
I should be getting around 12,200 TFT monthly if I calculate using the farming calculator, but only received less than half of that for the month of March & February.
These calculations must be available somewhere…
We all want/need that tool. Hopefully they come out with it soon, they are aware.
Have you checked on the explorer that it is reporting the correct amount of resources? Most people are reporting that their payments this month are close to what they expected.
I had the issue that the operating system miscalculated the SSD’s and so I had some downtime due to errors in the code.
Threefold kindly offered a compensation for that lost uptime, but it would be nice to be able to verify farming rewards anyway…
I have checked, there was no downtime for my server in March.
Can anyone answer if farming rewards based on capacity provided (even if unused) or are rewards based only on capacity that was actually used?
I’m wondering if it’s worth upgrading RAM on several machines if the already available RAM isn’t even close to being used at full capacity.
Ah, I found the answer here. “Proof of capacity” it is except for IPV4 and Bandwidth/NU.
Any updates on this question? I also feel their should be a way for us to calculate and verify the amount of rewards that we receive.
Hello! At the moment we do have a manual monitoring tool that allows farmers to validate the credits specific to Node IDs.
Please follow the guidelines below to access this tool: https://alpha.minting.tfchain.grid.tf/
- Go to https://stellar.expert/explorer/public to obtain the receipt hash.
- Fill in the respective wallet address (e.g. - https://stellar.expert/explorer/public/account/wallet address (replace wallet address with actual address)
- Look up the transaction but change the format of the receipt hash from base64 to hex.
- Place the hex receipt hash in the search tab in https://alpha.minting.tfchain.grid.tf/ .
Great! Now we’re able to verify farming rewards. That’s quite nice… even the result is somehow confusing. Maybe you can help me out.
I noticed that all our nodes were given less rewards then calculated with the Farming Calculator (grid.tf). Let me give you an example. One of our 3nodes has 40vCPUs and has 320GB RAM as well as 4TB SSD installed. According to the calculator these node should earn a monthly reward of 2592,50 TFT.
In Grid Explorer (v3) the node is shown with even more RAM capacity then installed. vCPU and Storage is shown correctly. See below…
Thanks to the information you provided I can see with the tool TF Grid V3 Minting Explorer that Mru and Sru is not matching the above mentioned parameters in capacity exactly. Also the CU value seems to be incorrect.
This is the result of the minting explorer tool for the same node.
As you can see… the node would be given 2421,43 TFT with 100% uptime. Depending on the measured uptime of 99,52% the reward decreases to 2409,80 TFT. When you do the math you can see that the difference between calculator result (2592,50 TFT) and minting explorer result (2421,43 TFT) is 171,07 TFT less. Of course I expected some kind of inaccuracy. And 6-7% sounds not that terrible. But in special and larger scales (which is the case here) this can be pretty disappointing.
So…my question: Is the discribed mismatching of the calculator results and the minting explorer information to be expected? I mean I could understand that maybe ZOS takes only the in fact usable amount of storage into account and not the theoretical storage size (of 4TB). But what about the mismathing CU value? We have a couple of identical servers running and the CU value differs about 4-8 units. That doesn’t make to mutch sence to me.
Can you please take a look and maybe clarify this. That would be great.
Hi, this has been answered in one of the chats as I was having the same question. In short, the minting code uses Base24 (1GB = 1073741824 bytes). If you use Base1000 when entering into the simulator, there’s going to be a difference.
So if you enter 320GB in the simulator, it’s actually 314.8 that Z-OS is registering. Same for the 4TB SSD, that’s not seen as 4000GB but as 3726 GB.
So if you know that, you can more accurately calculate the rewards.
Thanks for the answer. I remembered somethink like this. But this still doesn’t explain the difference in CU value. Or am I missing something?
The CU value is linked to the entry you make in the calculator. If you put in your original values (320GB ram, 40 threads and 4000GB of SSD) it returns 79.75 CU.
But if you enter the values in Base24 (so 314.828GB ram, 40 threads and 3726.023GB of SSD) it returns the CU value of 74.52 which is exactly as it is in the tool where you see the payment info.
So I think this is correct?