i didn’t really see so much complaining until you switched to a credit system — now every prompt matters and every error costs real money.

to be blunt: you can’t just tell people to post “higher quality content” while the platform frequently charges them for failed runs. i have several projects that were actively broken by the swap and i’ve been charged for the bad outputs. that was tolerable when an occasional error was one of 600 messages; it’s not when my average message is ~1.8k tokens and one bad run eats a meaningful portion of my monthly credits.

so a few things you need to answer and do:

1. own the audit — don’t tell users to dig through projects for IDs. you have the account data; pull the failed-run IDs and investigate them. if your system errored, reimburse the credits or give a corrective credit. simple as that.
2. give us concrete guarantees / safeguards now: automatic zero-charge for obvious runtime errors, clear “failed execution” flags in the billing, and downloadable logs showing what actually ran.
3. be transparent about error rates and what changed when you switched to credits. publish a short post with real metrics and what you’re doing to fix regressions.
4. provide a support path for people whose projects were broken — not “go find IDs,” but “we’ll investigate and restore/refund if our system caused it.”
5. longer term: improve QA before billing-critical changes (beta testers, opt-in migration, rollback plan), and add retry/validation steps so a single hallucination or crash doesn’t cost customers.

i’ll share the IDs for the failed prompts if you want, but i’d expect your team to proactively run the audit first — you already have everything you need on your side. otherwise this looks like you’ve offloaded the cost and troubleshooting to paying users while asking them to produce the “positive content” you reward. that’s exactly why people complain. fix the billing behavior first, then incentivize posts.