This seems like a reasonable move even putting aside the reasoning about breaking the assumptions that make a subscription model cheaper than a pay-per-use model.

Why would they actively subsidize the ticking timebomb? When OpenClaw has an especially large security incident, Anthropic will probably be affected just for the association.

Like, right alongside this post on the front page, we have a post about a relatively serious privilege escalation vulnerability in OpenClaw.

As a CC power user, an OpenClaw, and ZeroClaw user, I am completely fine with this. My CC usage has suffered lately, and however cool and fun the Claws are, I use Claude Desktop probably more than OpenClaw and it works just fine, and has a lot of integrations. I would rather have Anthropic continue to support its own products working well, and have all of these things move to another service, or pay Anthropic for their use.