There have been some great discussions on the Threefold Grid Tester Community channel on Telegram.
In short, there are some questions and concerns about billing.
Many things have been said in the chats, so I will try and share some of those ideas.
If you have some more things to say, or if I forgot something, let us know and we will update this post.
Some Information on TF Billing
First, users need to know that there has been a change in the Threefold billing process for utilization.
You can read more here: https://github.com/threefoldtech/zos/blob/main/docs/architecture/decisions/0001-nu-reporting-for-priv-traffic.md
- From now on, traffic to the public internet is counted, and reported as NU consumption. Not only the traffic over public ips.
- All traffic generated by the VM to public internet will be billed by the user. Even if the VM has no public IP.
Some Questions and Concerns on TF Billing and Related Notions
- It is hard to know the cost of deployments
- We’d need more details about hour rating, e.g. make it easier to track by users (bandwidth + basic deployment cost)
- Using mUSD in the TF website can be tricky as it is not common to use
- Users would benefit from having clear comparison tables to see the price of deploying workloads on the TF Grid, compared to other service providers
- Could locked TFT value during deployment be possible? Or some variations. See this post.
- this would be easier to track workload costs, it would also avoid major price changes (see the +/- 100% price change in the last days)
- Explain clearly how rewards for utilization work, how farmers get rewards
- if the farmers have blocks of IPv4 public IP vs IPv6 and Planetary Network
- farmers get TFT rewards from utilization based on network unit (if they have public IPv4 addresses available), not compute or storage unit
- Can a part of the Proof-of-Utilization rewards go to farmers?
This really is a kind of draft to get the Telegram discussions into the TF Forum.
Please speak your mind if you have something to share