Pricing competitiveness TF vs AWS and others

I wanted to see how TF compares to other known brands of hosting providers. I’ve included the 60% discount on TF although it’s not ideal(any larger deployment will have difficulty keeping 3 years of TFT at hand, so ideally there could be a size bonus for contracts?), and others have also discounts. E.g. Amazon has a good discount if prepaid for a year.

But all in all (assuming I got the numbers right) does not look especially exciting for customers.

Originally I included a table, but it didn’t work in bbcode format so image:
Screenshot 2022-04-13 at 15.16.34

4 Likes

please check on the following calculator

thank you for the feedback, we are playing around with some nr’s for our next alpha 5 release which goes on testnet this weekend or next week.

the nr’s in the link are not final but give idea, all feedback welcome

we will do a GEP for it (Grid Enhancement Proposal).

2 Likes

image

and with 60% discount

image

would be nice if you can let us know if the pricing is competitive like this, many regards

Kristof

Still looks bad using that calculator(only the per 1TB storage price looks okay):

Screenshot 2022-04-21 at 12.56.38

In most cases using a 40% discount it’s not enough to be competitive with classic hosting and they don’t ask for a year long contract for that price (Amazon gives also good discounts if prepaid 1-3 years). I know you want to maximise the holders but it’s killing the reason why someone would want to use it.

I’m not an expert, but from what I can see I think the root cause might be that you are manually setting the price of TFT. That might sit well with miners(in the short term), but in reality it will hurt the project. It’s just a matter of time when you are gonna run out of money. I know, it’s nice to sell those minted TFT’s for 0.80$(current price) but if you’re not in for the quick buck but want to change the course of the project here is my suggestion:
Remove the 50TFT barrier on the bridge to BNB, set it to 1TFT like it’s on the inbound(there is no real world reason why it needs to be 50 except to minimise miners cashing out), make it instant and more people will cash in their TFT. In turn lowering the TFT price and making these numbers look better. If there is a real supply-demand things might actually work. Yes your TFT’s will be worth less and mining won’t be so profitable but in the long run things should work out once there is good adoption. And right now I see everyone just cheering farming and barely anyone mentioning actually using it, and without using it it’s just looking bad.

Hi Guys,

I wanted to add my example. I have few Helium miners, one of the issue people have is need of public IP. Not all ISP are having this. Personally I’m using VPS from Ionos for 1,23 £
(https://www.ionos.co.uk/servers/vps?ar=1#packages)
ionos
This is the cheapest I could find. You know how many Helium miners are deployed. Maybe it would be good idea to target this group?

BR
Radek

1 Like

Even the storage price is high, especially before discount. Wasabi offers 1TB for $5.99 per month, with discounts for longer contracts.

I agree, it’s problematic to compare TF discounted rates with other providers pay as you go rates, especially when the other providers also offer discounts when capacity is prepaid.

Whether or not we should even be comparing these directly from a quality/SLA perspective is a larger question. For now, I think we can at least agree that the Grid is a new technology which still needs to earn its trust. Setting a really competitive price, at least to start, is a great way to attract usage and build that trust.

There is a simple reason for a higher fee in this direction, which is to cover the gas cost on BSC. In the other direction, the user has already covered the gas fee and all that remains is a tiny fee on Stellar. That said, I agree that 50 TFT is too high relative to typical gas costs. The devs do have a proposal to scale this based on actual current gas price.

Just to be clear, the capacity pricing is always dollar denominated, based on a (currently manually coded) TFT price. So far that’s always been $.1, meaning that there’s such a discount as you’re suggesting even now.

Looking at historic token price, even seeing it bottom out around $.01 wasn’t a sufficient discount to drive demand for consuming capacity. There’s much more that’s needed, including a nice UX, support, and sufficient testing.

We’re not as vocal about it as farming right now, but we do have ongoing efforts to onboard partners who want to utilize the Grid. Our resources are limited, so most energy is focused on growing the Grid and working out the kinks before too many users arrive. As you’re well aware, there are still very important questions to be answered, like how to handle bad actors on the user side.

Anyway, I think it’s really productive to hash out attractive dollar denominated prices for Grid capacity, so thanks for your contributions here. As someone who actually uses the Grid constantly, I can say that the current pricing feels high to me, even with the 50% discount on testnet.

2 Likes

Out of curiosity why are you needing a public ip for a helium miner or are you running a validation node? Miners work well under a private ip so long as you’ve forwarded 44158.

So what is the action plan to get this into production?

One thing I completely forgot. AWS has a bidding system! Implementing a bidding system would automatically „solve“ this issue of pricing as it would be demand-supply based.
Here it‘s maybe a bit different since it‘s contract based, but I‘m sure we can figure something out which drives usage and the system can be refined as real world data comes in from actual usage.
If I‘m not mistaken TF works on a hourly billing clock? That would mean a contract which is bidding below „normal price“ would be cancelled it there is a higher paying contract deployed on the same machine. Probably a range would be needed so that a contract can jump to a higher price if there is higher demand. Demand price probably need to be set on a machine level(to account for variations within machines), and a contract which is trying to remove an existing contract should probably have a minimim run time.
Obviously who is paying full prices would not be subject to such cancellations.

1 Like