> I think it signals that they’ve been so successful that they need to ensure there is some direct financial back pressure on heavy users to ensure that their heavy token use is actually economically productive.

Jesus, the spin on this message is making me dizzy.

They finally try to stop running at a loss, and you see that as "they've been so successful"?

Here's how I see it: they all ran out of money trying to build a moat, and now realise that they are commodity sellers. What sort of profit do you think they need to make per token at current usage (which is served at below cost)?

How are they going to get there when less-highly-capitalised providers are already getting popular?