Was low on usage limit yesterday. Decided to use my last banked reset. This morning noticed that my usage reset date moved to 11 aug! It was on 8 aug! What is wrong? If I use my banked reset the date of usage reset should not be changed. Tell me what is going on?
But of course it should, and it does reset the usage-reset date.
A reset fills your usage back up to 100% and puts you on day zero, so you get seven fresh days to use the quota.
You are describing how it currently works, but that is not the issue I am raising.
The issue is disclosure.
OpenAI describes this as a “banked rate-limit reset” that can be saved, redeemed later, and expires after 30 days. The documentation does not clearly state that redeeming it will terminate the current weekly window, cancel the already displayed upcoming reset date, and re-anchor the next weekly reset to seven days after redemption.
Those are materially different user expectations:
-
“Restore my usage to 100% now.”
-
“Restore my usage to 100% now and replace my existing weekly reset schedule.”
The UI communicated the first action, but did not clearly warn about the second consequence.
Had the confirmation dialog said:
“Using this reset will replace your currently scheduled weekly reset on August 8. Your next reset will instead occur seven days from now,”
then I could have made an informed decision.
This matters because banked resets expire after 30 days, so users are encouraged to redeem them before expiration. Redeeming one shortly before a normal weekly reset may postpone that normal reset and make the reward significantly less valuable than the interface suggests.
So yes, I understand that the backend currently starts a fresh seven-day window. My objection is that this behavior is not clearly documented or disclosed before redemption. Saying “of course it should” is an opinion about how the feature ought to work, not evidence that OpenAI clearly informed users that it works that way.
But this is exactly how the reset works. When OpenAi performs global reset, usage returns to 100% and the next reset date moves 7 days ehead. When you use a banked (gifted) reset manually, exactly the same thing happens.
Why would you expect the same reset to work different only because you triggered it yourself?
Presumably because words have meaning, and OpenAI’s description of the process does not match reality… User experience matters, but said experience doesn’t match what OpenAI /says/ will happen. To that end, it’s not user error to assume that OpenAI’s description of the process be correct.
I get what you’re saying. I understand that technically OpenAI treats both resets the same way.
My problem is that this is not obvious at all when you actually use a banked reset.
A banked reset is shown as something you earned or received, something you can save and use later, and it also expires after 30 days. So naturally, people think they are using an extra reset to get more usage when they need it.
What is not explained is that by using it, you also lose the reset date that was already coming up and start a completely new 7-day cycle.
That is the part I disagree with.
It is not the user’s job to guess how the backend works. If using a banked reset moves the next weekly reset date, the interface should say that clearly before you confirm it.
Something simple like:
“Your usage will return to 100%, and your next weekly reset will move to 7 days from today.”
That would be enough.
Then people could decide whether it makes sense to use the reset now or wait.
I like OpenAI and use their products a lot. I’m not trying to attack the company. I’m saying this specific feature is explained badly and can easily mislead people.