I buy the theory that Claude Code is engineered to use things like token caching efficiently, and their Claude Max plans were designed with those optimizations in mind.

If people start using the Claude Max plans with other agent harnesses that don't use the same kinds of optimizations the economics may no longer have worked out.

(But I also buy that they're going for horizontal control of the stack here and banning other agent harnesses was a competitive move to support that.)

Nah, their "moat" is CC, they are afraid that as other folks build effective coding agent, they are are going lose market share.

In what way would it be abused? The usage limits apply all the same, they aren't client side, and hitting that limit is within the terms of the agreement with Anthropic.

Taking umbrage as if it matters how I use the compute I'm paying for via the harness they want me to use it within as long as I'm just doing personal tasks I want to do for myself, not trying to power an apps API with it seems such a waste of their time to be focusing on and only causes brand perception damage with their customers.

Could have just turned a blind eye.

The loss of access shows the kind of power they'll have in the future. It's just a taste of what's to come.

If a company is going to automate our jobs, we shouldn't be giving them money and data to do so. They're using us to put ourselves out of work, and they're not giving us the keys.

I'm fine with non-local, open weights models. Not everything has to run on a local GPU, but it has to be something we can own.

I'd like a large, non-local Qwen3-Coder that I can launch in a RunPod or similar instance. I think on-demand non-local cloud compute can serve as a middle ground.

How do I "abuse" a token? I pass it to their API, the request executes, a response is returned, I get billed for it. That should be the end of the conversation.

(Edit due to rate-limiting: I see, thanks -- I wasn't aware there was more than one token type.)