Fast Requests Calculation Update

Hey all,

During the rollout of v0.46, and the coinciding release of Claude 3.7, a bug was introduced that caused failed fast requests to count towards your quota.

While many of the issues were regarding the high demand on the new Claude 3.7 model, the issue on our end was that these requests would still be counted against your usage.

We have already rectified this issue, so errored requests do not count against your monthly allowance, and we have also backdated this, so any falsely counted requests have been removed from your account - this accounted for >1 million requests being undone!

We apologize for this! Feel free to post any questions or concerns below, or for specific queries to your account, drop us an email at [email protected] and we’ll be happy to help.

24 Likes

Hey. How will we know if miscalculated requests have been undone?

4 Likes

Thanks, appreciate that. This should be a pinned thread :slight_smile: as many created separate threads in last few days.

Oh i do have to edit this reply.

  • Sadly there is no change of requests count but im sure that many tool calls failed as well as requests over last 3-4 days.

Has this change rolled out to all accounts?

All my fast requests are still finished after trying Claude 3.7 thinking a couple days ago (February 26)

1 Like

You can look at your overall usage on the website and if it is lower then it was then that confirms the have been credited back.

1 Like

@ericzakariasson Any feedback?

Some of us don’t have the billing set to the 1st so we’re stuck using slow requests till it resets

this is a bug ? i chosen model 3.5 sonnet and it answer it is model developed by openAi. output is same as gpt4o.

@ericzakariasson Where can we see the number of returned requests for our accounts?

To me it seems I am burning through fast requests a lot faster than before 0.46. Would there be a reason for that?

Hi Eric,
I feel just now this happened with me, I go two failed request, I resumed it and instead of 1 hit it is showing me 2 hits. Can you check this?

@danperks @deanrie
Can we get some sort of statement from the Cursor team?

1 Like

Still no reply from the Cursor team
Not on here or the email I sent

Looks like I’m taking my money over to surfing editor (they blocked the actual name, surprise surprise) because this is unacceptable

I still have 6 days before my fast requests reset and my prediction is that I will get a reply from Cursor the day before along the lines of “Sorry you account seems to have been missed, but hey look on the bright side, your requests reset tomorrow so no harm done”

why did this payment of $ 11.88 come out now I paid close attention this time, usage-based payment is definitely closed ? this is a nonsense !!! waiting for an explanation !!!

Hey all, I believe this change has already rolled out, but I will confirm with the team if this has taken effect already.

The Cursor team can’t even be bothered to reach out to the few people on this thread having issues so I have no faith in this team moving forward


Even going as far as to unlist the thread so more people can’t see the shady practices they got going on

Hey, we have a system that tries to unlist anything that may not be fit for the forums automatically, for when the team may be inactive or asleep. It grabbed this as one to hide, but shouldn’t have done so!

@ericzakariasson Where can we see the number of returned requests for our accounts?

1 Like

Did this really change? When retry happens, the credit is still being used

I wonder if there are packages for unlimited fast requests as such would come in handy when intensive work periods of my project. I would not mind paying for additional 60-80 USD on top of the pro pack.

Anyway, I don’t know how this calculation works though only 5 days in my pro-pack membership cycle has already occurred additional 20$ charge.

Sonet 3.7 is only deducting query counts but stopping without returning premium query results. So far, I’ve lost about 20 queries. Also, for the diff issue, quick queries are being deducted, but there are no actual modifications.


Just now…