@condor, thanks for acknowledging the feedback—but I strongly disagree.
While models may “get better over time,” our balances are bleeding now, and that’s unacceptable. We’re being charged for every iteration—almost 50% of our prompts need reframing, reasking, or correction before we get usable output.
This isn’t speculation—multiple users have reported the same experience. One even experienced frequent “stopped” errors that still deducted credits every time medium.com+8forum.cursor.com+8forum.cursor.com+8americanbar.org+4forum.cursor.com+4community.openai.com+4.
Another user pointed out how “linter error tool calls” in Claude 3.7 MAX racked up costs on failed attempts forum.cursor.com+1forum.cursor.com+1.
These charges happen before the model has a real chance to succeed.
So telling us to just wait for model improvements is like telling us to hold onto a burning match. Our balances are being consumed right now, on failures—and that erodes our trust and confidence in the platform.
We deserve a fair billing mechanism that:
- Exempts us from charges when responses clearly fail or don’t address the prompt.
- Provides an option to flag unused or unhelpful responses and reset the balance deduction.
- Offers transparency: let us see if a request was errored and not billed—right in the dashboard.
This isn’t just about complaints—it’s about holding Cursor to its promise of quality AI-assisted editing. We’re willing to pay—but only for successful results. And I know the wider community stands with us on this.
Please don’t ask for our patience—act on our concerns now. Thanks.