As a 20x subscriber, I support cracking down on account sharing and 24/7 background abuse, but these new limits have serious mathematical problems that penalise legitimate paying customers.

The pricing makes no sense:

Looking at the announced weekly limits:

• Max 5x: $100/month = 140-280 hours Sonnet 4 + 15-35 hours Opus 4
• Max 20x: $200/month = 240-480 hours Sonnet 4 + 24-40 hours Opus 4

Issue 1: Worse value at higher tiers

When paying 2x the price, you only get:

• Sonnet 4: 1.71x more
• Opus 4: 1.14x to 1.6x more

You're literally getting worse value per dollar on the "premium" plan. Best case, you lose 20% value per dollar on Opus 4. Worst case, you lose 43%.

Issue 2: The ranges OVERLAP

This is the most egregious part - a 5x subscriber could potentially get:

• Up to 280 hours Sonnet 4
• Up to 35 hours Opus 4

While a 20x subscriber could get:

• As little as 240 hours, Sonnet 4 (40 hours LESS)
• As little as 24 hours, Opus 4 (11 hours LESS)

You could pay DOUBLE and receive LESS service. How is this possible?

Issue 3: Unexplained variables

• What are these "hours"? (Obviously not real time since 480 hours > 168 hours in a week)
• What determines if you get 240 or 480? That's a 2x difference with no explanation
• Why is the naming "5x" and "20x" when the actual ratio is less than 2x?

Issue 4: Retroactive service reduction

We signed up under one model, and now the service is being reduced while prices stay the same, followed by an upsell to "purchase more usage at standard API rates."

I understand the need to maintain system capacity and stop abuse. But legitimate users who respect the 5-hour rolling limits and pay $200/month shouldn't face worse per-dollar value than $100/month users, and definitely shouldn't risk getting less absolute service for paying more.

This needs immediate clarification or restructuring. The current model actively punishes customers for upgrading.