I would like to express my strong dissatisfaction with the current rate-limiting issues that are preventing slow pool users from accessing Claude 3.7 Sonnet. The model has immense potential, and it’s frustrating to see that users like myself, who are part of the slow pool, are unable to utilize it effectively due to these limitations. While I understand the demand for such an advanced tool, the slow pool restrictions make it nearly impossible to get any meaningful usage from it.
Furthermore, I believe there needs to be a serious reconsideration of the free user policies. It is becoming increasingly apparent that large-scale black-market operations are exploiting the free access, with mass registrations occurring to take advantage of the service. This situation is unfair to legitimate users, and it ultimately harms the platform in the long run. If this continues unchecked, it will degrade the service quality for everyone involved.
It would be more equitable if free-tier users had stricter limitations in place to prevent this abuse, allowing the system to prioritize genuine usage. This approach would ensure that legitimate users are not at the mercy of bad actors, and that the platform can maintain a level of service that benefits everyone. I sincerely hope that the team takes these concerns into account and works towards a fairer, more sustainable solution.
I would like to add further thoughts regarding the issues surrounding the Slow Pool and Fast Pool usage. It seems that as soon as users subscribe to Cursor, they are automatically directed to the Fast Pool until 500 requests are consumed, which seems unfair and not reasonable. Of course, we understand that resources are limited, but it’s crucial to offer a more balanced and fair approach instead of the current subpar experience.
As loyal users of the platform, we are willing to pay for better experiences and would prefer not to compete for limited resources with black-market users and those simply exploiting the system. It would be beneficial for the team to present a more reasonable solution for this, ensuring fairness and access to quality service.
I also want to express my respect for the Cursor team. It’s impressive that a post like this is allowed to pass through the official forum’s moderation. This shows the high level of professionalism of the team, and I will continue to support Cursor because of this. Best regards.
I completely agree – it’s frustrating that early users got 500 fast requests while paying users can’t fully use the service. It’s obvious many exploited this loophole with multiple emails, making the experience worse for those actually supporting the platform. A fairer system is definitely needed.
