I wanted to say something dismissive. It feels like a lot of doublespeak, which I think undermines trust in them.

But I do understand that it's a little hard to characterize the amount of compute they're selling while obfuscating the business model enough that it still works. Demand, costs, supply, capabilities, competition change wildly week to week.

Selling a standardized "token" via the API with gas-like pricing works a lot better for transparency. But I think there's a world where the ambiguous subscription pricing is net beneficial for users and providers. Allowing some degree of price discrimination should benefit everyone in aggregate, assuming there's real competition and not yet another duopoly..

Apparently they were already offering 50% extra limits.

150% -> 125%

25÷150 = .1667

That's how they arrived at 17%.

https://x.com/ClaudeDevs/status/2093742321473065266

IIUC it's been on a "temporary" raise, which is higher than the one they're now "making permanent".

maybe he means in respect to how many reach the limit?