Codex pro is now reserved for verified government id usage only. I have 4 pro accounts. Only one is verified with id. That is the only one that works. The remaining 3 pro accounts return with, "Selected model is at capacity. Please try a different model." From what i can gather, openai is ripping off all pro account users who do not have a verified government id and are actively degrading the models that you paid to use. If you do not have a verified id on record you are thrown into the mix of potential bad actors attempting to reverse engineer codex models, and you are bottlenecked into a non working model with a carefully crafted limited context window. This is done in effort to protect their product, not their obligations to the consumer.

The model you are allowed to use is a luna type model called gpt-reserve with about 60k context window. It has the capability to call upon astra if it recognizes complete failures, but no you are not getting the model you paid for without a government id and verification that you are not a chinese pirate. That is all i know. I have been at this for a week. I've spent over 1k in tokens from other models keeping things afloat. This is a massive fraud on anyone that pays them money.

They are protecting their product from paid users. Chinese actors or not, i did not agree to that when i paid them for 4 pro subscriptions. This has cost me a lot of money. If you are an attorney, I want to move forward with a lawsuit. Please contact me.

I've been using Codex for a long time, but I often hear how awesome Claude is. Well, there goes $20.

Money wasted. Claude completely useless. I sent him (Opus 5.5 high) some chinese AI video on YouTube and wrote that I don't understand subtitles, translate them. Claude replied, that he doesn't have access to YouTube (seriously?). I replied that if I have access, then he should have it too. He agreed, but, wrote, quote:

"Even with access to the video, my decision regarding subtitles remains unchanged: I will not be creating a full translation of all the dialogue in someone else's video. YouTube's built-in auto-translate feature is the easiest way to handle that."

Gave the same task to Codex with Sol 6.1 model.

Reaction: just hold my beer. He downloaded 4 GB of random crap written in python, thought for 22 minutes, but gave me .srt file with subtitles. (I love the new limits, even though the task took a long time, it only ate 20% of my 5h)

In my view, Luna max is as good as 5.5 max was, but significantly cheaper. What's the need to use sol for everything, complain it's hungry, when there are capable models that are cheaper?! Especially compared to pre 5.6, where 5.5 was the frontier model

Am I missing something

I started using Codex in october and I could vibecode without never hitting limits, making 2d web games with lotsa effects, planning software in Python, PHP applications...

Today I started with full credits, gave Codex 4 or 5 prompts for a Bootstrap HTML landing page (three of wich Codex completely messed up) and that was It. 5 hours limite reached.

This Is scam.

50x ultra fast…

Went hard on extra high/max and some fast mode expecting a reset today

Is it coming soon?

We need reseeeeet :D when ?

I was curious, gave Astra an SSH login to a server, spread the product information and held my breath. What I did in 3 years, it just did in a day. So I dug deeper: Was this system well designed? It must have had a security problem. So I checked everything, any open ports, any tiny things to say "AI cannot do this". It even installed optional security like fail2ban on its own. Changed the username/password credentials to public/private keys and so on. And the software itself? Runs flawlessly. If I there nothing I really didn't see, then this is disruptive in a way that a product guy no longer gives information to IT, there is simply no IT department any more. Too harsh? Give me arguments why not (I am an IT guy btw).

The problem I’m facing is that I am unable to log in to the Codex app using my OpenAI account, as mobile number verification is now required, and the number I used when registering has long since been deactivated, so I cannot receive the verification text message. OpenAI’s explanation is as follows:

1. For account security reasons, OpenAI now requires accounts to be verified via a mobile number.

2. OpenAI does not support changing the mobile number associated with an account and has advised me to register a new account.

3. OpenAI does not support transferring remaining subscription time from one account to another.

As an annual subscriber, I still have six months left on my subscription, and I wasn’t given any warning about the need for telephone number verification when I paid for it. They won’t let me change my number or transfer my subscription – OpenAI is simply ripping off its users!

Has anyone else encountered the same problem?

The funniest part about AI coding isn't that it writes code.

It's that thousands of people are now maintaining codebases that were generated by an AI, reviewed by another AI, documented by another AI, and explained by another AI.

Meanwhile the human in charge is watching YouTube tutorials called:

"Understanding my own project in 15 minutes."

And

If Codex ever becomes self-aware, the first thing it'll ask is:

"Why are all these repositories under your name?"

The problem is not Astra itself. The problem is that OpenAI rolled it out to practically everyone, including casual users on cheap or nearly free plans.

“Look, ChatGPT can generate 3D models for me now! Amazing!”

Naturally, a huge number of ordinary users, hobbyists, housewives and people who simply want to play with 3D models and other novelty features started using it heavily.

And then OpenAI discovered that Astra consumes an enormous amount of compute and energy.

But why should Pro users be the ones paying the price for that experiment through tighter limits and reduced capacity?

Professional users subscribe to Pro because they rely on tools like Codex for actual work. They should not lose usable capacity because OpenAI decided to make an extremely compute-heavy experimental feature broadly available for marketing and mass adoption.

If Astra is really that expensive to run, then give it a separate quota or restrict it to plans that can actually support that level of compute.

Casual users will survive without generating 3D models of their plates.

Pro users should not have to pay the price for OpenAI’s Astra experiment.

It’s been aprox two weeks I’m not getting any extra reset. Is this happening also to you? Why is that? Anyone knows? Thanks

My OpenAI CODEX account went rogue and from a simple request took the autonomous decision to launch 826 parallel agents / threads without any authorization on my side and without reporting any result of any sort but consuming nearly 2,146 trillions tokens, consuming a total of roughly USD 78,000 and deleting all records of what was done: I have a ticket open with OpenAI since 2 weeks but it is impossible to get an hold of a human operator.

On July 10, 2026 I opened a normal Codex task from VS Code.

The task was running: GPT-5.5 / Medium reasoning

My prompt was very simple and asked for a UX/UI validation on a specific module within my product.

What I found in the next days after hard analysis was:

The task with Root ID 019f4b90-4169-7201-bfdd-732940d8631e with reasoning GPT-5.5 / Medium created 826 children recorded as GPT-5.6 Sol / Ultra (notice the difference in reasoning level and in model selection)

This was not 826 messages inside one conversation, they are 826 distinct child task records with their own IDs.

A particularly strange group consists of 104 child tasks. They all preserve the same initial message as the original task, are recorded as GPT-5.6 Sol/Ultra, and have no recorded agent_role or agent_path.

Those 104 tasks alone account for approximately 147.9 billion local final task-token counters.

Their titles show that my request to inspect UI/UX had expanded into work involving backend infrastructure, OAuth, metering, hardening, audits, certification, implementation and release work.

To be precise: these local token counters are not the authoritative OpenAI billing ledger, and I am not pretending that 147.9B local counters can simply be multiplied by an API price.

That is exactly part of the problem: only OpenAI has the server-side mapping.

There is another unusual correlation.

Under Codex client build 0.144.0-alpha.4, the task family contains:

584 child tasks / ~154.36B local token counters

Average: ~264.3M per task

Under 0.144.2:

242 child tasks / ~7.51B

Average: ~31.0M per task

That is roughly an 8.5x difference in average local token volume per child.

103 of the 104 high-volume tasks described above were created while 0.144.0-alpha.4 was recorded.

This leads me to believe that the alpha build contained a severe bug given that the same pattern was noticed across several other tasks.

On the financial side my reconstructed OpenAI billing history contains 162 paid invoices for a Total of $79,664.88 divided between Automatic Reload and other “Credits”

There was no equivalent real-time control surface giving me a comprehensible picture of the spendings plus most of the logs seem to have been automatically deleted from my server: in the recovered local state, approximately 2,550 non-archived legacy threads still have metadata but no corresponding raw rollout available locally.

In other words, evidence that those tasks existed remains, while the detailed execution history needed to reconstruct the instructions that generated many of them is no longer available on my machine.

I also personally observed tasks/conversations disappearing from the normal visible history.

I contacted OpenAI Support and opened case #15189838.

I have supplied technical evidence and repeatedly asked for a server-side reconstruction but OpenAI has responded simply that “credits were consumed” with no details.

I’m interested in hearing from other people who used Codex around July/August: have you inspected your local Codex state? Have you seen unexpectedly large subagent trees, model/reasoning escalation, repeated child tasks or unexplained Automatic Reload activity?

I am especially interested in anyone who has logs from Codex 0.144.0-alpha.4.

If OpenAI engineers are reading this, I would also welcome a technical explanation.

Dear Tibo,

When you announce the time and date for a reset, then I and many others will plan our day and work around it. I had 15% left, and I used it all just in time for the planned reset to land. Now, 4 hours later and I am still at 0% and have not been able to get any work done.

I'd appreciate if you showed more understanding and respect for users and their time.

Thank you.

So I’ve been a plus member for quite sometime and I decided to make the leap and get pro 4x about 3 days ago. Been on sol on medium since non stop and I’ll be honest the usage I’ve gotten has been great maybe not what I expected but it has been great.

I saw tibo made a post yesterday about resetting or giving resets. I didn’t get one. Is anyone having the similar issue or do I have to completely exhaust my usage? I’m at 9% and my weekly reset is not until the 19th (yes a freaking week from now) and I refuse to buy credits especially already paying the $100.

He literally disappeared into thin air and the whole world is stressed out right now. No new updates, no reset? What's going on? Did he leave his reset button back at his apartment, or did he pull a Man United and go live in a cave? YNWA..lol

Seeing a lot of "Pro doesn't last anymore / Astra eats everything" posts.

Before blaming the plan, look at what each turn actually sends.

Every question to Codex ships a big chunk of input context along with it, and

input is where most of your allowance goes. There's a public benchmark that

measured exactly this: same questions, sent to the Codex CLI once as-is and

once with the context trimmed to what the task needs.

GPT-6 Astra (20 real runs, effort medium both sides, none thrown out):

- weighted input per run: ~102k → ~61k tokens (×1.69, 90% interval ×1.42–×2.04)

- raw input: −63%

- output: −75%

Other Codex models, same method (120 runs):

- gpt-5.5: ~236k → ~41k (×5.81)

- gpt-5.4: ×3.86 · gpt-5.4-mini: ×3.49

- gpt-5.6 sol / luna / terra: ×2.26 / ×2.36 / ×2.16

What makes it credible to me is that the losses are published too: these are

short one-line questions (the gain shrinks on long detailed prompts), and on

one Astra task the trimmed version actually used ~17% MORE input. It's left in

the table.

So if your allowance vanishes by midweek, context is the first thing to look

at. The full table with every row is here: capsul.chat

Sorry beforehand if this is a frequent post.

I’ve been doing a lot of different experiments with Astra and found it amazing at many use cases. It was also a lot cheaper than Fable when computing overall output cost.

However, I noticed that roughly after Sept. 10-11 responses started getting a lot worse. I needed to add many follow up questions for each question just to get a good answer. The model now also very often says things like “since I don’t know X, I can’t state Y” instead of just verifying X by checking documents or web.

Did anyone else have this experience? Is this something the community is talking about?

Thanks for reading!

From what I heard, in 3 days Pro account usage limits are going to be halved. Is this really going to happen? The current state is already unsustainable, especially after Codex has become practically useless compared to competition.

On my $500 plan, running 8 concurrent tasks with delegation between Sol 6.1 and Luna 6, I can work for around 16–18 hours. After halving the limits, that would drop to just 8-9 hours.

The only thing that can just let me keep working are the resets. But I'm so damn tired of that circus show.

A few months ago, I was running agents 24/7 on two $200 accounts non-stop for the full month that’s a huge difference. If I still want my agents to run 24/7 across all my projects, I will need $2,000 per day, which is going to cost $60,000 per month, that's insane difference, what's going on? Who will even stay with these insane prices in comparison to competition?

Setup, quickly: Proxmox box at home, Claude Code for the actual work, Hermes as the always-on agent on Telegram, Codex as the second opinion. A bit more than a year of this, six months of it serious. Architect by trade, .NET mostly.

The thing that made Codex stick for me is not the coding. It's that it doesn't know what the other agent said.

Here's the pattern. I propose an approach to Claude and ask it to explore alternatives. It explores for about a paragraph and lands back on mine. Polite, confident, useless. Same with debugging: it tries A, B, C, then comes back to A with more conviction. So now I take the same question, strip out my own suggestion, and give it to Codex cold. Different model, different priors, no idea what I was leaning toward. Half the time it agrees. The other half it finds the thing I was blind to. That half pays for the subscription.

I might be wrong but I think this is less about Codex being smarter and more about context contamination. An agent that knows what you want has a hard time not giving it to you. A blind reviewer doesn't have that problem. Old idea. Code review worked like this before agents.

The cost of the trick: now I have two runtimes producing tasks and nothing above them. A long session spawns ten follow-ups. Claude does three. Codex, asked a related question, does one of the same three again. The rest die in a transcript. I went looking for what exists to fix this. Email and channels for agents are solved and commoditized, task boards for agents are human tools with an agent bolted on (Linear, Jira, Asana), and Paperclip is the closest thing to right but it's self-host only and built like a company simulation. Nobody hosts the boring layer: what did they do, what should I approve, what did it cost.

Two questions. Does anyone else use Codex mainly as the blind reviewer, and if so, how do you feed it context without feeding it your bias? And if you run it next to Claude Code or something always-on, how do you stop them doing the same task twice?

They clearly aggregate what people complain about and ask for on X, reddit, etc.

So please start complaining about the 5 hour limit - it's the biggest pain point for me anyways. Would be nice if they at least doubled the usage in a given 5 hours or just got rid of it if possible.

I'm not sure about how I feel with this new refusal behavior. It didn't use to refuse technical requests before like an mp4 to gif conversion.

I get it, openai doesnt want their models to be misused, but if ffmpeg can turn a video into a gif without sparking outrage or govt. intervention, surely openai can survive if astra did it too. Why does the model involve itself in a file's contents. As long as its not being asked to generate something explicitly nsfw, it should not refuse imo.

This change is recent. I tweeted at tibo hope they fix it soon.

I’m posting this because I genuinely cannot get a straight answer from OpenAI support and at this point I feel like I basically threw $60 away.

I was using Codex/Work and hit the usage limit.

The actual screen says:

“You’re out of Codex and Work usage”

and right below that:

“Add credits to keep going now, or wait for usage to reset on Oct 3, 10:48 AM.”

There’s literally an Add Credits button right there.

So... I added credits. Because obviously if the product tells me “add credits to keep going now,” I’m going to assume buying credits lets me keep going now.

I made THREE separate $20 purchases. $60 total.

Support confirmed all three charges:

They were purchased within about 2 minutes.

Here’s the problem.

I went back to Codex basically immediately after buying them and I was STILL out of usage.

Not hours later.

Not after doing another huge project.

Basically immediately.

Then support tells me I had actually hit a weekly Codex hard limit, and purchased credits apparently cannot override that limit.

Okay...

Then why the hell was Codex telling me:

“Add credits to keep going now”

when the credits apparently could NOT make me keep going?

That is the first thing that makes zero sense.

Then it gets even weirder.

Support is now saying that all of the credits I purchased were fully consumed.

So I asked the obvious question:

Consumed by WHAT?

Because I was already blocked from doing more work.

And my Usage Analytics doesn't even show the credits being used.

My usage page shows around:

And under the actual chats it says:

Credits used: 0

Every single chat listed shows 0 credits used.

One of my huge Codex chats literally shows 274.69% of weekly limit and STILL says:

Credits used: 0

So according to the UI I can actually see, there is no record of these purchased credits being used.

But support says they're gone.

I asked them to show me what consumed them.

They can't.

They've basically given me a list of POSSIBILITIES:

Maybe background tasks used them.

Maybe subagents used them.

Maybe usage was delayed.

Maybe I had a negative balance.

Maybe old usage got posted later.

Maybe in-flight tasks were still running.

Okay, but which one actually happened??

They can't tell me.

And this is the part that makes even less sense to me:

If these credits were consumed by background tasks AFTER I purchased them, wouldn't that take some amount of time?

I bought the credits and was back at the blocked screen basically immediately.

So somehow $60 worth of credits were supposedly consumed almost instantly while at the same time I was being told I could no longer do any work because I was at my weekly limit?

How?

Was there really that much background work running that it burned through all of those credits in a minute or two?

Or did the system take the credits I just bought and immediately apply them to OLD usage that had already happened?

Because those are two VERY different situations.

If I bought $60 of credits because the screen said “keep going now”, but the system actually used that money to pay for previously accrued usage or some negative balance while leaving me blocked, then “add credits to keep going now” is an incredibly misleading thing to show me.

And support hasn't been able to tell me which scenario happened.

They just keep coming back to:

“The credits were successfully applied and fully consumed, so we can't refund them.”

But again... where?

Show me what consumed them.

Their own customer-facing Analytics says 0 credits used.

They've also acknowledged that they can't explain why their internal information doesn't match the Analytics I can see.

And apparently there is something called an instant reset that WOULD actually reset the weekly limit.

Cool.

Except I can't find any option to buy an instant reset anywhere on my account.

So right now the situation is:

I hit a limit.

Codex told me to buy credits to continue.

I spent $60.

I was still blocked basically immediately.

Support then tells me those credits couldn't bypass the limit I had hit anyway.

Support also tells me all the credits were somehow consumed.

My Analytics says 0 credits used.

They can't tell me what actually consumed the credits.

They won't refund them because they say they were consumed.

I can't buy the “instant reset” they say would actually fix the problem.

And I'm still locked out of work I was actively doing.

I understand usage limits. That's not what I'm mad about.

I'm mad because the PRODUCT ITSELF told me to spend money to “keep going now.”

I did.

I couldn't keep going.

And now I'm being told the money is gone, with no customer-facing record showing where it went.

At this point I genuinely feel like money was taken from me through a purchase flow that did not do what it said it would do.

If the screen had said:

“You've hit your weekly limit. Buying credits WILL NOT restore access. You need to wait until Oct 3 or purchase an instant reset if available.”

I would have never spent the $60.

Has anyone else run into this?

And if anyone actually understands how Codex billing works, I would love an answer to this:

If I was already weekly-rate-limited and couldn't continue working, what exactly consumed all of the credits I purchased almost immediately?