Skip to main content
  1. Articles/

OpenAI Quietly Tested Charging for Codex Resets. Five Days Later It Gave One Away Free.

·1089 words·6 mins·
Florent Clairambault
Author
Florent Clairambault
CTO & software engineer — writing daily about spec-driven development and agentic coding

OpenAI Quietly Tested Charging for Codex Resets. Five Days Later It Gave One Away Free.

Two OpenAI Codex stories landed five days apart in the past week, and read together they say more than either does alone.

On August 16, a limited pay-to-reset test surfaced in ChatGPT’s own checkout code — not an announcement, a discovery. On August 21, OpenAI announced Codex had crossed 20 million active users and credited every paid Codex and ChatGPT Work user a free reset as a celebration. The second story reads like generosity. Read next to the first, it reads more like a company that tried charging for the thing it was simultaneously giving away for free a few days later, and got caught testing the paid version first.

The Paid-Reset Test Nobody Announced
#

OpenAI didn’t publish a blog post or changelog entry for this. It was found by the AI-tracker account @testingcatalog, who spotted pricing tiers embedded in ChatGPT’s public checkout configuration: Plus-tier resets priced at $5-8, Pro Lite at $25-40, and full Pro at $50-80 — a wide enough range that it reads like an unfinished A/B test rather than settled pricing. Tom’s Guide subsequently confirmed the low end was live for at least some Plus subscribers as an actual $8 in-app prompt, and got an OpenAI spokesperson to confirm the company’s general intent — described as “exploring ways for users who hit their caps to buy additional usage” — without confirming specific figures.

Worth being precise about what this is and isn’t: no OpenAI blog post, no on-the-record pricing confirmation, no named OpenAI executive putting their name on it. It’s a silent test, discovered via app code, with a spokesperson’s vague confirmation layered on after the fact. That’s a meaningfully weaker sourcing bar than this blog usually requires for a standalone claim — flagged here explicitly because the contrast with what happened five days later is still worth drawing, not because the paid-reset test itself is airtight.

Then: 20 Million Users and a Free Reset
#

On August 21, Codex lead Tibo Sottiaux posted on X that Codex had crossed 20 million active users — up from 15 million roughly a week earlier and 10 million on July 21, a genuinely fast growth curve by any measure. To mark it, he announced every paid Codex and ChatGPT Work user would be credited a free “banked” reset, promising it would land by 8pm PST that day. (X’s own paywalling of fetcher access means this post can’t be quoted verbatim here with full confidence — the wording above is corroborated across multiple independent search results and a tracker site pulling directly from his feed, treated as well-corroborated paraphrase rather than a verified direct quote.)

The 8pm deadline came and went for a meaningful number of users without a reset landing. This is where the story is easy to oversimplify: it wasn’t a clean no-show. OpenAI’s own community forum shows a staggered rollout — some users had resets by that evening, others were still waiting, and OpenAI’s own follow-up comments pointed to a same-day-but-timezone-confused distribution window rather than a hard failure. By the following day, Sottiaux confirmed on X that the reset had “landed” for everyone. Call it a roughly 18-24 hour miss against the stated deadline, not a broken promise outright — but a miss all the same, on a self-imposed deadline for a feature meant to generate goodwill.

What happened after it landed undercuts the goodwill further. Multiple users on OpenAI’s own developer forum reported the reset drained within hours of ordinary use — one described theirs going from full to zero within six hours of what they characterized as routine work, not abuse. Another asked the obvious question directly on the forum: what’s the point of a single reset if the underlying rate limits run out just as fast as before. Business/ChatGPT Work users separately worried they’d be excluded from the milestone benefit the way they reportedly had been from prior ones.

The sub2api Deflection
#

Sottiaux’s posts that same week also addressed a separate complaint thread — users reporting Codex usage limits behaving inconsistently — by attributing much of it to “sub2api,” a category of open-source tools that let people share or proxy a single ChatGPT subscription’s access as if it were API access across multiple users. That’s a real phenomenon (the tools exist publicly on GitHub), and it’s a plausible explanation for some of the anomalies. But forum and X users pushed back specifically on the framing, several stating they use only the official client and still saw fast quota drain — rejecting the sub2api explanation as insufficient to cover what they were seeing.

Why the Sequence Matters More Than Either Story Alone
#

Neither the paid-reset test nor the free milestone reset is, on its own, a major story — a silent pricing experiment discovered in app code is common industry practice, and a promotional reset that ships a day late is a minor operational miss. What makes the sequence worth writing about is the five-day gap between them: OpenAI tested monetizing the exact mechanism it turned around and gave away as a customer-goodwill gesture, using it as a lever for both purposes in the same week, on a product that just crossed 20 million users and is presumably under real pressure to convert some fraction of that growth into revenue.

This is a genuinely different posture than the up-front, published-changelog cadence this blog has tracked for Claude Code, where governance and rate-limit changes — subagent caps, budget flags, backgrounding rules — land as dated CHANGELOG.md entries with stated behavior, not as discovered checkout-code experiments a tracker account has to dig up. It’s a small data point, not a verdict on either company’s overall pricing philosophy, but it’s a legible one: one of these products tells you what changed and when; the other one you find out by reading its checkout page’s source.

No mainstream tech outlet picked up either half of this story as of publication — it’s still living in developer forums, X, and one tracker-account discovery, which is itself worth naming plainly rather than dressing the story up as more broadly confirmed than it is.


Sources:

Related