Glenn 'devalias' Grant

Then looking at my time tracking: > The strongest figure is 42 hours 47 minutes logged against explicit Codex-related troubleshooting, across 138 entries on 34 dates. Including recovery tools and workflow work brings it to 80 hours 34 minutes, after removing overlapping timers.

> The selected threads account for approximately: > > - 43.6 hours of recorded agent runtime after removing overlap—46.3 hours summed. > - 48.7 million uncached input/output tokens. > - 1.08 billion input/output tokens including cached context.

Their seemingly copy/pasted generic response was basically "maybe negative usage balance, even though nothing told you about that, and also we can't actually check or confirm anything anyway".

@thsottiaux To add to the list of 'Usage tracking issues'; I hit my limit yesterday, was only a few hours till reset so not worth using a banked, so figured I would buy 250 credits to tide me over. Paid, never even saw them land, did no work, instantly gone. Support: "lol, 🤷"

I’ve now replied directly to @up_banking , and updated the same GitHub comment with it. Main constructive ask: if unsupported/private interfaces are restricted, pair that with a safer, capable, first-class Developer API; not just stronger prohibitions. github.com/up-banking/api/is…

Update: @up_banking has completed its internal review of my complaint. They acknowledged good-faith discussion was removed, apologised, and outlined plans to restore context + establish clearer guidelines/terms. Response + my initial thoughts: github.com/up-banking/api/is…

For the record: I’ve posted the formal complaint + this thread back to the GitHub issue, so subscribers should at least get it by email even if (likely when) @up_banking deletes it again. GitHub: github.com/up-banking/api/is… Wayback: web.archive.org/web/20260818… Archived for posterity.

Deleting discussion doesn’t make tooling disappear. It erases useful history, context and community knowledge, including criticism of those deletions. If this concerns you too, raise it with Up or share this thread so they see the impact on users who’d otherwise be advocates.

I’ve also raised a formal complaint directly with Up about how this was handled. The first half is attached here; continued below. My concern isn’t that Up has to endorse unofficial tooling. It’s the removal of relevant history/context, then criticism of those deletions too.

And this is getting increasingly disappointing. After Up deleted a large batch of relevant comments, I posted a comment criticising that approach. As expected, @up_banking has now deleted that too, apparently alongside yet more of the discussion. Screenshots for posterity: