I suspect people are misdiagnosing the root cause of why Anthropic is doing this a bit.

I don't think this is particularly about the financial impact of people using OpenClaw - they can adjust the amount of tokens in a subscription quite easily.

I think the root cause is that Anthropic is capacity constrained so is having to make choices about the customers they want to serve and have chosen people who use Claude Code above other segments.

We know Anthropic weren't as aggressive as OpenAI through 2025 in signing huge capacity deals with the hyperscalers and instead signed smaller deals with more neo-clouds, and we know some of the neo-clouds have had trouble delivering capacity as quickly as they promised.

We also know Claude Code usage is growing very fast - almost certainly faster since December 2025 than Anthropic predicted 12 months ago when they were doing 12-month capacity planning.

We know Anthropic has suffered from brown-outs in Claude availability.

Put this all together and a reasonable hypothesis is that Anthropic is choosing which customers to service rather than raising prices.

▲

wigglewoggle 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm at large company and pretty much everyone has settled on opus or sonnet 4.6. We would absolutely not allow something like OpenClaw on our network so your point kinda fits here where, if capacity is constrained, then by setting focus away from OpenClaw you're essentially prioritising the enterprise clients. Just spitballing of course

	▲	nl 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes exactly. I doubt they actually want to do this. They clearly see having a wide set of paying customers as valuable (otherwise they'd just raise prices) but if you are stuck having to make hard choice then I can see the attraction of this approach.