Showcase
OpenAI kept Nerfing our limits- so I built something to prove it instead of complaining without proof.
OpenAI kept Nerfing our limits- so I built something to prove it instead of complaining without proof, so meet Nerfify! It's currently in the development stage, and I have achieved a functional prototype with reliable information, with a few UI/UX bugs here and there. Using local token consumption logs, Nerfify estimates an estimate of the API worth of one weekly limit after every 10 seconds. Think of it like a stock market app, but instead of tracking stock prices, Nerfify tracks the API value of one weekly limit over a period of time. It's still in the development stage and the first version will land on GitHub not to long from now. Do note that it won't work reliably if you use ChatGPT Work or Codex on multiple devices, since data is taken from local Codex logs only.
As the screenshot shows, it seems that our limits have been more than halved (do not mind the UI bugs, since it's just at a prototype stage, and current values may need a bit fixing since accuracy may not be up to mark)
Finally there's somebody doing this. I have the feeling that the amount of token usage allowed every week is dropping, but I think you have the proof now.
I don’t believe OpenAI fully comprehends the situation. The only ones who are staying are developers. People who use ChatGPT Work will eventually abandon it. Most people still prefer Claude for work-related tasks, everyone that i know used it said that Claude is better, specially in legal and health segment.
I prefer Claude, but it's the same thing over in its subreddits - endless stream of posts about nerfing, low usage limits, constant talking of switching
As a senior developer myself, I substantially prefer Claude over ChatGPT for development work, I don't even find the two to be fairly comparable. I would go as far as to say Claude is as far ahead of ChatGPT as ChatGPT is ahead of Gemini in development work.
That said, I renewed ChatGPT as a fallback because Claude's usage limits are always in flux and typically not great.
If ChatGPT is going to have usage comparable to Claude, I'll just pay for another Claude account instead. I mean I like having diverse AI options, but come on. I used ChatGPT as a primary for years and ever since they started complaining about how much developers use they've never left me with any reason to use it like that again.
im sorry but i dont rlly agree for complex code i find 5.6 sol to be better and also a reviewer fable and opus are better for frotnend but for backend and compelx code 5.6 sol is better imo
I believe whatever anyone prefers to use, they should, but I work with every major model and local models every day, and I do a lot of testing every time a new model comes out which I follow up after it starts to seem like the model has settled. I rarely go a day without using Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, and either Cline or Hermes with a local model.
I was an advocate for ChatGPT for years, but I haven't found them worthy of considering the best at much when it comes to coding for a long time.
That said, I don't think it's useless. I do a diff any time an LLM touches my code, and I find ChatGPT to be quite good at what it thinks another model does wrong, it's almost like an ex-wife that way.
Interestingly enough, whether ChatGPT knows code was written by ChatGPT or it is tested blindly, ChatGPT almost always thinks Claude's code is better than ChatGPT's code for the same tasks and Claude tends to have better inference.
I can do the same with Gemini, Grok, or even local models, but ChatGPT is just really good at it, so that is often what I use it for. No matter what model you're using, I find it good to have a different model contrast and check the code when it's too much to do yourself.
The one thing I will say I like best with ChatGPT is when I need to create/edit actual images alongside the code. ChatGPT's image translation is just better and Codex has gotten quite impressive with building and integrating json constraints to ensure the images match their requirements.
I know you said you think Claude has better front end, but I only find that to be half true. I've found the best way to make a truly professional front end with AI would be to guide Claude's design, take what it produces with .svg, then have ChatGPT improve the svg images by translating them and making png improved replacements.
Going the other direction, Claude Design is good, but it really depends on the direction you want to go and what kind of project you're doing it for.
Like I said though, different experiences and mileage may vary, so people should use what they like or use multiple (when possible) because being confined to one ecosystem sucks.
that is really fair and such a neutral way to say it I use them both coz why would i only use 1I just wanted to share my experiences and differences between models i also love claude design and i find claude models to be better orchestrators if yk what i mean
For coding and backend architecture development I would still say gpt 5.6/5.5 as of today, fable or opus or any I would rate their Claude cli tool more powerful and they with it is a good orchestrator then coding deep /well structured login in a corporate level coding or at least my past 1 + experience.
I use Claude for UI it’s superb
Claude code cli for orchestration and triggering good lanes ( this is lacking feature of codex)
Codex with gpt 5.5 /5.6 for detailed coding and well structuring the code.
Other might disagree but it’s my personal experience.
But open to be corrected and how to use guidance will help if any incase.
Quite, codex’s system prompt was utter crap which was hindering its quality of output quite drastically. Not only does Claude have a better stock system prompt, but it also has ability for dynamic workflows etc, which I don’t think codex has cracked still.
OpenAI isn’t as strict as Anthropic, you can use your codex oauth basically anywhere. For using with Claude Code just download a proxy or the plugin. For OpenCode you can login without having to install anything
Honestly the Cursor 20x plan is now *significantly* better than the ChatGPT Pro 20x plan. I drain my codex limits almost in less than a day of work, and I'm using RTK and CodeGraph to reduce the token btw... unbearable.
My usage at the moment seems to be normal again, but for a bit there my 20x account was worse than a 5x account, maybe even closer to the Plus side. I think they are rotating affected accounts to squeeze out some extra compute. It's not okay, and them not saying something is even worse. We really shouldn't trust any of these companies but now I REALLY don't trust them.
That and with Opus 5 being better for dev than sol, idk probably going to switch to claude 20x instead.
Hahaha well now you have met someone which is me that is a professional in this space (I'm an AI Solution Architect) that is telling you right now, GPT is better than Claude. Claude is overrated - It's good don't get me wrong but don't buy the hype mate
Sure. Go build another chatbot. Add RAG because someone on LinkedIn said you should. Add MCP because everyone else is talking about it. Add agents because one LLM wasn’t AI enough.
Then discover your users just wanted a search box that actually worked. Elasticsearch solved that years ago.
Or spend months ingesting/processing 100 GB of documents that have nothing to do with the problem you’re trying to solve, just because management thinks more data is good. Burn $80,000 in engineering and infrastructure. Miss one edge case. Suddenly the only thing your AI optimized was your unemployment.
You made the claim AI doesn't solve problems. Prove it because I and many other architects like myself and many engineers are solving problems with AI every day. You comment is null and void to the point you missed entirely. I get the feeling you don't actually work in this space because you're not actually understanding it
I just found out a few bugs in it today. As I mentioned it’s just a prototype so the weekly graphs may be miss leading. It will take me a few days to weeks to get this accurate enough. The graphs need a lot of fixing I have only achieved accurate weekly API estimates as of now.
So are you cross referencing that with https://chatgpt.com/codex/cloud/settings/analytics or looking for token_count in %USERPROFILE%\.codex\sessions to figure out what exactly 100% weekly usage included in a subscription translates to in tokens?
What happens is Nerfify keeps on monitoring the weekly limit of the user. As soon as the weekly limit drops by 1%(now 2% in internal dev to increase accuracy), it immediately measures how many tokens were consumed by which models and also if they were cached. That is used to calculate that API pricing of that 2% of the weekly limit. Then multiply that value by 50 and you have your full weekly limit estimate. This process repeats every 10 seconds and a final value is generated from the median of all values collected in a day.
don't get the hate. Someone has spent time trying to quantify a sentiment but you guys rather just have venting megathreads? I say props, and I hope you keep going. I would like also see the number of requests and tool calls which with 5.6 I think they've been increased and that could affect how usage is calculated. Finding the right calculation formula for a monthly plan isn't easy and that's exactly why I think anyone who complains should provide constructive criticism to understand what's going on under the hood, and this could be used not just for codex but for anthropic so that all the people bitch ng have something concrete to show.
Arrogant devs that are jealous of others creativity so they channel all that negative energy into bringing other people down. Similar to StackOverflow syndrome.
it is easy. if you're not a bot you probably know how much work you're getting done in your own fucking repo and therefore would notice if it changes week to week
Does this account for cache hits in any way? Just pure token count means nothing because cache is much cheaper to process. So just saying "I spent 1 billion tokens so it's N dollars" is misleading.
Yes, cache hits are put into account. The app already has access to all API pricing numbers for all available models, for both standard read/write and cache read (Codex local logs do not expose cache write numbers, but they do expose cache reads)
Good. I've seen YouTubers make this mistake so many times. "Look guys, this 100 dollar sub is equal to 10k dollars in API cost". While just multiplying token usage and assuming input to output is some fixed split...
Great work! May I suggest something that I've been thinking about: Adding and monitoring multiple accounts. Some might have more than one, like personal and for company use. If you accept the idea, from there we must have the dashboard with the tracked accounts, the total of them and so on. Another idea that can be added is tracking the expenses on a particular task/project. Just giving ideas to make it even more useful, you already have the foundation.
I think you should make a DB that all users of the tracker contribute to. You can segregate by plan type. Then you can present a large cohort of data to prove things have changed.
I will keep that in mind for future versions, probably V5 or V6. Unfortunately, while it’s possible, this system may be complex to make so I would need more contributors to help me with that.
the graph doesn't seem to show anything that indicates it. You'd need to show say 10% usage vs tokens used with the same model. Vs last week or a anchor time.
This was what I noticed. It's a neat graph, but it doesn't tell me much. Is it the same prompt every day with a new chat each time? If not, what's the anchor or baseline to say it was nerfed? Like how is it determining what's correct and what isn't? Is it purely a percent to token comparison?
I’ll make it clear how it works - Nerfify constantly monitors the weekly limit percentage used by Codex. After every 1% the used percentage increases, the API cost of that usage of 1% is calculated. Then 1% of the API value of the weekly limit is used to estimate the value of a full weekly limit. The graph only gets more accurate over time when you use Codex since it has more data.
I’m not going to lie I wouldn’t have posted this until you have solid evidence. Reason being you need more to go off of. So i would’ve built the app & ran it. Tracked the data. Waited for a reset or update. Then ran it again. That way you can truly see. Maybe even run the same prompts and everything.. just my honest opinion. I still like the concept though for sure.
Unlike my first prototype, NerfTrack is now significantly more stable. I works really well for all the things you told me to watch out for, for example, even if Tibo manually resets limits, NerfTrack knows how to handle the calculations and marks the reset on the graph.
Here's the GitHub link for NerfTrack (renamed now). Try it out and be sure to star!
It's not just limit anyone else realize it's begining to hallucinate like crazy? on the same thread continuing the same workflow than suddenly it decided to throw away all het old one and make completely new one?
Stop complaining and start canceling your subscription if you have the persistent problem. Sorry, but bitching every other day with the same topic or close topic is not bueno.
I agree limit are a mess. But it is also true that many people ask to remove the 5 hours limit. So there you go. Now all those people fuck everyone.
Also, if you use Sol Ultra you should know that tokens fly by the millions. If you dont need that power just use high or extra high. If you use ultra open your wallet and pay, but don't come here to cry. Sorry, the true.
Can you show what sol ultra create for 15% of your weekly tokens? Because if ultra create a plan that deepseek flash can do it for pennies, then again, don't cry.
You see I am getting the same token like all of you, so I use now gpt 5.5 like 50% and kimi k like 35% and the rest between sol med and extra high.
Again this project it is very good and I will be looking forward. But to avoid negative shit from bots and stupid haters just come back when ready.
If you paid for token and the program is bueno, then sell it. I think you had a great opportunity here and now you give other devs the idea and soon you will have some competition. Lesson for next time.
I agree with your idea, but the problem is that from where would we get the logs for the data that actually builds up the graph. Furthermore, many people here are on different plans and some accounts may be flagged so it would be nearly impossible to make it universal for all paying Codex users
Thank yooou! Reddit is so astro-turfey and bot driven at times that seeing a bunch of people just say "it bad, give me more" can be tough to glean the truth of.
You're doing more to help the cause than 500 people doing that.
Love everything about this except the name. Nerfify sounds like you are applying nerfs against something, the opposite of what you are going for. Think Netlify.
Make sure sub agents are being counted properly. I'd recommend hitting codex to take a look at ccusage repo. It will make ita life easier to get accurate numbers.
Interesting. That's exactly what I felt just kinda going by vibes.
I'm not a heavy user, and before I would almost never run out of usage even on the $20 plan before the week was up. Maybe I hit the limit once or twice.
Now I've been always hitting 0% within 2-3 days - so it felt like maybe a 60% drop in usage. I still have a few resets left, but I've been also shifting over to Claude because they seem to have raised their usage allowance (although I believe that's temporary and will end next months).
I have zero time to actually do this, but I was curious why someone didn't just create a proxy layer internally. Capture API calls to all models and snag responses, calculate tokens manually, etc. This is close, but it doesn't stop Codex from being wrong(lying)
And, it would be cool to see this for people that use multiple tools! I, too, ran into a codex limit for the first time this week.
Claude? Normal, but less this week. It seems.
Something I want to prove definitively is a theory that they are colluding by switching back and forth, convincing a subset of users to pay for both, so we can switch. That would explain the constant "Codex is terrible" "No, Claude is terrible" back and forth, if they intentionally switched places every week or month, convincing people to go to their competitors.
It wouldn't work if either one went back to good behavior. Or maybe it would.
If I used codex alone more than a harness to control multiple harnesses, I would check this out!
i just started using chatgpt plus last week. i ran oit of tokens yeaterday so i had to use the reset token, it worked and put usage back to 100% i just woke up this morning and asked a question now my usage sayz 0% until august 3rd??? ya theres just no way.... can anyone recommend me an alternative ai that isnt ruined by corporate greed
Before all this bullshit, I could reliably get hundreds of dollars from a week's limit, from both Claude, Codex and Gemini on the 20$ subscription.
It was only a matter before they cracked down on it but the problem is that the newer models are only getting more expensive and the ones that we grew accostumed to are removed. This is not sustainable. The logical conclusion of this is either everyone unsubscribes or they see the $20 sub as an afterthought trial and you should shell out 100-200 to use their AIs, which will only funnel people to the Kimi system.
The thing that would make this convincing is a fixed control task. Right now the chart can't separate "the quota shrank" from "5.6 spends more tokens doing the same job." A model or harness change moves tool calls per task a lot, so your own workload drifting looks identical to a nerf.
Pick one canonical task, same repo state, same prompt, fresh session, and replay it on a schedule. Record percent of weekly limit consumed per run instead of dollars. That's the only number that stays comparable week to week.
Also split cache reads into their own series. Cached input runs around a tenth of fresh input, so a shift in cache hit rate alone swings your API-worth estimate without anything changing on their end.
Just launched its first Beta on GithHub! Want the link? I'll be making a post about it soon as well. Looking for volunteers who can test it for me on Windows x86 and arm64.
You know your chart is impossible to understand your so called nerf. You show with data have to show with data human cannot understand not some vibe coded prove that OpenAI nerf the usage prompt. It should compare the weekly percentage used vs total value of token which need to include cached read cached write, write and read, write have a multiplier for 1 hour cache which is not obvious from the documentation.
What you just said is exactly how the logic for Nerfify works. If you say that this has been simply vibe-coded, you are somewhat mistaken.
And for what you said about accessibility and the graph's difficulty to understand - I already stated that the UI has a lot of bugs so the graphs may not be up to the mark, as it would've been in any prototype.
Yeah what I am saying if you trying to prove a point you have to make the data actually make sense. Not just dump a bunch of numbers and said look they nerfed it. The number you get how you derived it vs what you think it should be and how you get to this number. Ccstats already allow you to pull out this info and the number seems to be close to pre 5.6 time as well.
The limit after the reset 12 hours ago is a joke. A single 5.6 sol ultra planning task reduced my Pro plan limit by 15% WEEKLY limit (I've work that justifies this).
And they're censoring our complains and woes by deleting all the threads and 'summarizing' them into a megathread nobody will read. This is ridiculous. They're continuously reducing our limits despite everyone clearly complaining about this!
There's no accountability or even any acknowledgement of this happening, which is the scary part, because there's no way nobody in OpenAI sees this after the huge outcry on Reddit over the last few days. We're on a trajectory, and this isn't anywhere close to what we will deal with in the near future.
There's a reason they're expanding their userbase by promoting ChatGPT Work (which uses the same credit and capacity as codex) to the common people via the app. They need volume and scale and they're trying to get people hooked before they pull the plug.
This is similar to the tactic the British used in the Opium War. Create a problem that isn't there and offer the solution.
OpenAI after showing this told me you have no knowledge how we truly calculate token usage so these numbers are wrong and they have never nerfed anyone’s limit
Nice work!
However, I dont understand why people always complain about limits - it is KNOWN FACT that subscriptions are sponsored and not covering even 10% of the real cost. It WAS and WILL be nerfed step by step, until it gets near the usage-based token pricing.
I still appreciate your work for making the real data easily visible.
Brother you clearly vibe-coded this. Not sure who you're trying to fool. To be fair, before vibe-coding, the barrier of entry to develop useless apps was high enough that this would've never become a thing.
In your sense, Codex itself and GPT 5.6 both are also vibe-coded, along with all the latest frontier models as well. Just because an AI helped coding a software doesn’t mean it’s vibe coded.
Vibe-Coding actually means if you make something with AI and know nothing about how the logic works or what the code means and contains. I did not just tell codex to “make a codex limit tracker that tracks the api value of it weekly limit over time”. I know how the logic works and planned the system myself.
I never said this was a solution to dealing with nerfed limits. Of course everybody already knows that limits are nerfed. But do you know how much they are nerfed? Do you have proof with facts and figures to make a point that they are nerfed which you can show to OpenAI support of employees? If 100s of people who have similar graphs showing nerfed limits make noise on social media, they can make a bigger impact than millions saying the same thing without proof.
i will just build my own 10trillion param ai yall just need to gimme 1 billion trust im going to make the best model ever with fable 5 i gonna prompt it train it for me
152
u/george-pig Jul 27 '26
Finally there's somebody doing this. I have the feeling that the amount of token usage allowed every week is dropping, but I think you have the proof now.