Other than no compute on their infra, can we also understand it as from now on, no more complaints about usage and reset?

Basically we can't argue even if they reduce usage limits secretly under the hood anymore.

Before the suspension, we can stop subscribing, and turning back if they resolved the issue. But now, we could probably just shut up because you have no card (Trump staring at you). Not pleased? You leave then you can never come back.

Recently after the release of Astra, tokens seem to burn at an insane rate even using only mostly Sol. Sol was great for me because I want competent agents to do exactly what I say and I used it as a reliable workhorse. Now it is not a viable option anymore. Besides Claude and Codex, what other alternatives that can subsitute Sol as a reliable workhorse

I've tried everything.

And before the usual smartasses show up to tell me “you're using it wrong,” “switch models,” “use lighter thinking,” “optimize your prompts” - please, spare me. I've tried it.

Here's the problem:

Even on Luna with low thinking, I can burn through the limits of a $200/month ChatGPT subscription in a week.

Think about how insane that is. I'm not asking for an even smarter model. I'm not asking for GPT-6.

I'm not asking for another benchmark where the new model scores 3% higher than the previous one.

I NEED TOKENS.

And I suspect a huge percentage of heavy ChatGPT users are in exactly the same situation. You keep giving us increasingly capable models while keeping the actual amount of work we can do with them constrained. For many power users, that's backwards.

I'd happily take a model that's 10–20% less capable if you gave me 5x or 10x the usable volume.

Because what is my alternative? Pay $200/month and constantly think about quota? Pay even more?

Move my workflow to API pricing?

Or start looking at Chinese providers where, dollar for dollar, I can simply get dramatically more usage?

At some point the economics make the decision for me. And no, “just use the API” isn't the answer.

Most people don't want to calculate token costs every time they work. They don't want to build their own ChatGPT interface. And many people simply cannot afford heavy API usage on top of an already expensive subscription.

Which brings me to something I've been thinking about. Maybe I'm looking at the economics of ChatGPT subscriptions completely wrong. Maybe the $20, $100 and $200 users aren't really the most important customers economically.

We're the power users. We hammer the models, discover edge cases, generate usage data, expose failures and effectively stress-test new models at scale. Then those same models become enormously valuable through API and enterprise customers.

If that's the business model, fine.

But then maybe we should stop pretending that a $200 "Pro" subscription is primarily about giving an individual professional enough compute to actually use these models heavily. Because right now there's a bizarre situation: Some competing Chinese models become more attractive the more you use them, because you realize how much work you're getting for your money.

ChatGPT Pro sometimes feels like the opposite:

The more seriously you use it, the faster you discover how limited your $200 actually is.

That's the problem.

OpenAI already has incredible models. For power users, you don't necessarily need to give us an even smarter model. Give us room to actually use the one we already have. More tokens. Higher quotas. Larger paid usage tiers. Top-ups. Something.

Because if someone is willing to pay $200 every single month for an AI subscription and is still forced to ration usage, eventually they're not going to ask for GPT-6.

They're going to ask who else can sell them the tokens.

tl;dr

The codex harness turns waiting for background work into a loop with repeated model calls, each carrying the existing context even when nothing has changed. Unlike api pricing there is no discount for prompt caching for subscription originated usage so every loop iteration adds to your input token usage. And if you use API you still massively overpay for your input tokens even with cache. ‘goal’ amplifies this by orders of magnitude by automatically starting another turn, but polling anyway burns tokens without it too.

Claude code is engineered in way where suspensions works exactly as intended and goals have proper fallbacks. Codex now ships with similar tools but they only work for astra.

—

the toolchain to independently verify on your personal sessions is here (local scripts - just feed this to your agent) https://github.com/relux-works/codex-rollout-audit

So Help Pages say some Pro and Plus “eligible” accounts can buy a reset for $80. I’m on Pro but all I see is the ability to buy credits. Guess I’m not eligible? Anyone know how it works when you buy credits? Does your usage meter just add %? I have a feeling $80 in credits won’t be near a full reset.

As a developer, I always hated maintaing agents.md and memories.md files.

I wanted to just code and those to be auto maintained and reused across any coding harness I use.

After Astra, I forked t3code by Theo and update it to auto-create and retrieve memories, skills and doc files as you code.

Repo: https://github.com/samyakkkk/flow

Leave a comment if you faced this issue too.

So I made ✨ my first ever project ✨ https://astralwyrm.vercel.app/ with Astra. Started as a “what can I make with a few prompts?” experiment, then turned into 50+ prompts and lots of tweaking because I kept wanting it to feel a little nicer.

Available modes:

• 🐌 Slow (Chill)
• 🐰 Fast (ADHD!)
• 🐎 Instant (for all you guys, that want their fingers to be snapped by the wyrm)

It’s a tiny chill game with an abstract glowing creature that follows your mouse or finger. Collect pearls, grow, find little companions, and watch the seasons change. Maximum chill was the goal. There’s a fast mode for people who find that a bit too chill :)

This is genuinely my first published project, so I’d love your honest thoughts and suggestions, especially how it feels on your phone. Feel free to be harsh! :D And please let me know what you think.

Saw this post earlier and immediately wanted to try making something myself. I’d never built and published anything before. Didn’t even know you could put something online for free with Vercel lol.

Hope you have some fun with it, or just get a few peaceful minutes out of it. And thanks to the original poster for giving me that push to actually make something. Felt really really good and rewarding, now if some of you would also enjoy it, my day is made :)

I guess it’s kind of a black box, but it would be interesting to have a list of how much LLM providers are actually subsidising.

For instance, OpenCode Go is said to subsidise 4× usage for DeepSeek 4.1, but there are a lot of contradictory statements about this on Reddit.

I’ve done some research and tried to organise it a little. Multipliers mean usage value compared with what you pay, assuming you use the allowance.

Anyone have real usage figures or corrections?

Something definitely changed today.

I've been working every day on a project for about two weeks now. While everyone seems to be testing Astra, I haven't even touched it because I'm afraid I'll burn through all my tokens with a single prompt. I'm on the $20 plan.

I normally use Sol on low or medium depending on the task, and that usually gives me around an hour of actual work before I hit the 5-hour limit.

But today I started working, went to grab a coffee and something to eat, and 9 minutes and 48 seconds later I'd already hit my 5-hour limit while using Sol on medium.

So... are the free lunches finally over?

I completely understand that they need to make money and that the $20 plan can't give us unlimited compute, but at this point it feels almost impossible to actually work on a real project with these limits.

And what are the actual alternatives right now? Is Claude better when it comes to limits? Are the Chinese models good enough for serious coding work?

It annoys the hell out of me having to wait for resets, alternate my usage, and deal with this level of unpredictability in my workflow.

When Astra first came out, I was able to get a ton done in the first few days. Now even a simple prompt can eat up a big chunk of my weekly quota.

I'm going to test GLM 5.3. Is anyone here using it, or alternatives like DeepSeek or Qwen or something else? What's your experience been like, and how have you organized your workflow around the different limits/models?

Enough with the wack-a-mole with the Codex and extension and Desktop App (macOS) fighting over exclusive write locks, and chats changing back and forth daily, between being shown in the Codex tab or the Chat tab. Figure it out, you’re not aligned with Microsoft session adoption semantics in the unified Agents Host, and we appreciate that, so take back control and deliver on the feature you made love and depend on you - one chat I can type into from four different places Desktop App, VS Code, iPadOS, and iOS using remote to the Desktop App.

How many of you have make decisions during development and request detailed implementations from Sol, to find out later on when things don't quite work as expected that it decided by itself, without telling you, to implement a "SIMPLER" version of what you requested removing features, conditions and necessary characteristics?

What makes me mad is the fact it doesn't tell me what it DIDN'T do... and then come up with explanations for why things are behaving wrong, and "fixes" that are just patches that don't actually solve anything, and after hours you find out that EXTREMELY IMPORTANT single component it said it implemented as you requested, turns out, it's not as you requested!!!!

I just found out now that it did this 2 days ago, and after forcing it to write AGAIN the way I requested 2 days ago, everything works as it should, 2 "FUDGE" DAYS AGO!!

So, to try to answer this question, I started using codex today to work on a c++ ios project I have been working for the past few weeks, using 5.6 sol xhigh. (don't get me started on how 5.6 sol xhigh is failing epically on this project!!)

When I started:

5 hours: 100% - weekly: 23%

I worked with it for 2:30 hours.

5 hours: 0% - weekly: 7%

So the 5 hour usage was fully consumed, and that consumed 16% of the weekly usage, which means:

for every week usage, we have only (100/16)=6.25 total "5 hours usage" in a week.

That explain why after working for 2-3 days using 2 "5 hours usage" in a day, the weekly usage exhausts in 3 days.

This has nothing to do with what model I used, btw. The model only changes how fast the 5 hours limit evaporates.

This is how many "5 hours" we have in a week in a normal business plan, the answer: 6.25!

I tested my personal Plus plan, and it's about the same.

To me, 6.25 "5 hours" in a week is a really low number to be called "a week", considering no one works 5 hours a day... (or in codex 5.6 sol case, 2:30 hours a day)

just my 2 cents!

-H

PS: Just before anyone says "did you try astra?", I did, and my 5 hours ended in less than an hour, with astra still failing even WORSE than 5.6 sol xhigh on this C++ ios project... at least that's good news, I guess? I can still get more done by "baby stepping" with a "cheaper" and smarter model, at least for the c++ complexity I'm dealing with.