Having been working on a site for months I’m very disappointed with the new billing. I am very happy to pay my a monthly subscription to gain access to a tool which enables me to create products. With these changes, my monthly subscription has given me 2 days worth of changes out of 30. My majority of work has been insisting V0 fixes issue it creates by overwriting files when changing them or iterating to identify a solution to an issue which v0 hugely overcomplicates, to eventually find a solution roll back and then implement. That’s pretty much all I’ve done and I’ve used up my $20 for a month. What is the value in paying for a subscription. You have to think about how you want to enable your user base to work with your system because this is completely non viable to sit within my AI tech stake. As a solo business owner, the initial packages of most products give me what I need to start to use a product in anger and scale, the $20 plan gives me 2/30 days of work. I will need to find an alternative if this doesn’t change. Very disappointed I’ve loved working with this tool.
Agreed, totally unsuable and not viable for any deployment now. Im actually having to make use of Cursor and other AI cosing assistance to save face on v0.
Ive burnt through my credits in the first 4 days of this new system, and what have i got ? Multiple cloned blank chats , so im paying for v0s errors? (im not talking about code, but it cloned my chat multiple times and didnt give a response.
So im expected to pay for this am i ? Absolute joke , esepcially since ive moved from my old deployment process (AWS) to try out this, ive now got to move Two websites ive deployed with Vercel.
completely unacceptable and i can not even fathom what they were thinking when implementing this.
great way to sabotage your user base
I am in absolute agreement .,. I have spent the last couple of days going around in concentric circles with prompts yielding laughable results. This has not jeopardised my MVP when I am 20% away from the finish line .. very disappointing
We left replit, found bolt and lovable too expensive because of issues generated, for V0. I was in love. Now they drastically change to this credit system with an AI that is just not there yet to justify charging these credits.
It’s anxiety inducing worrying about how much we’re doing to spend on a bad prompt where we end up having to restore code and lose what we spent. Please Vercel, rethink the pricing strategy. At this point, it’s become a money grab overcharging for tech that still doesn’t perform to justify these prices. Will be cancelling teams and plus memberships, and avoided our other company from signing up.
I hope the new payment system is just a mistaken plan. Previously, my premium account, which cost $20, lasted me comfortably for a whole month. However, I renewed my account just 1-2 days ago, and my $20 credit was used up immediately. This is really ridiculous. Please urgently find a solution. All my projects are now left unfinished and won’t be completed on time.
I don’t know what you guys expect with this new payment system, but so far it’s horrible
I got one duplicate charge, and the model is horrible. It makes errors on the project and makes the code disappear.
Hey, Kasu! Happy to take on any community platform feedback. Feel free to drop them here:
Keep ignoring users and trying to shut this down we won’t be silent
We’re not trying to ignore users, I can assure you that we’re sending feedback directly to the v0 team every day this post gets a new post. 
Please keep posting feedback!
Major disappointment with V0’s new pricing by Vercel.
Prices have skyrocketed compared to the previous plans, and the change was made suddenly with no choice left for users. Even worse, V0 still suffers from many bugs—before, unlimited usage allowed us to patiently work around issues by retrying. Now, with the new system, every bug or unresponsive prompt eats up your credits, and it’s easy to burn through your $30 monthly limit on failed attempts alone.
There’s no more room for exploration or building new things. V0’s new pricing forces us to stick to simple, “safe” projects to avoid being overcharged, which goes against the whole spirit of innovation.
What’s even more unacceptable is that we’re being charged for V0’s own errors. When the service fails or gets stuck, we have to retry—and get billed again for something that wasn’t our fault.
With this new pricing, I’ve already spent $20 in a single day, without changing my workflow at all. At this rate, it could cost me over $200 a month, which makes the service completely unappealing.
I’m extremely disappointed with Vercel’s decision. I would have gladly paid a higher monthly subscription to keep the previous system and flexibility.
As things stand, if there’s no return to the old plan, I’ll be looking for other solutions.
Can you please provide an update for where you are at with this? The Vercel team have had plenty Feedback since this change and it is clearly evident in their subscriptions anyaltics, I’d imagine they taken a massive hit based on this.
Also, im sure they have good insight on usage trends and the fact that majority of us are burning through credits within days of our “Monthly” allowance, this would be alarmingly obvious in the first day, yet they’ve sat idle.
I get that changes like this need considerable timeframes to make fair and sustainable changes but in this situation it is make or break.
The team are running out of time to salvage this, I can not even warrant the cost of my chats since 7 of them didnt even respond, no code, no preview , no chat response was made (some chats duplicated).
Thats pushing aside the fact that v0 has some serious teething issues when “Fixing” code , Generating without stopping or in general just slapping in Placeholders / workarounds as “Fixes”.
There is clearly alot of issues that need ironing out before a pricing model like this is even viable. We as a paying community were happy ironing out these issues, i for a while before Discord was taken down was providing insightful fixes and changes that could be made …which was met with negativity, like we were trying to offend them.
Id suggest hiring in some more community managers, integrate back to discord but this time dont half ass it , create custom bots for support, allow a well moderated and community driven bug reporting / suggestion workflow.
Having ONE person ask for “Chat Link” was just archaic, theres no wonder you guys had to delete the discord. The incompetence on there was laughable.
@pawlean
I think V0 should encourage everyone to use it and to create. The current token system completely restricts the usage scenarios. I noticed the recent launch of the API feature, which I think is absolutely fantastic, but this token-based billing completely limits future usage. For example, my usage bill: a month costs 20 USD, and using it for just one day costs 5 USD, meaning my 20 USD can only last for 4 days. This billing logic is terrifying. Most importantly, I haven’t even used it for particularly complex tasks; I just had it help me fix some simple bugs. Therefore, please reconsider the billing method and encourage everyone to use V0. From my understanding, V0 shouldn’t just be about Next.js; there’s a much larger imaginative space, such as animation, 3D, and product design. So, I look forward to changes in the billing rules. I am a Pro user who has been using V0 since its launch until now.
My subscription was renewed, and on the same day, I received a warning that the monthly limits had been reached. This is unacceptable. I submitted a support request to resolve the issue, but I haven’t received a response in two days. Many others are experiencing the same problem, and it is clearly a technical error. Why haven’t you provided an explanation?
If a solution is not found, it will result in a subscription cancellation and contribute to the downfall of V0. I haven’t been able to do anything for two days, which is why I’ve already canceled the subscription. I’m still waiting for the issue to be resolved, and if it isn’t, I will switch to alternative tools.
We need updates now, and urgently, you are radio silent during this change with Fob off responses.
We need a statement from Vercel team right NOW, you are affecting peoples projects, workflows and existing deployments.
i myself have two deployments heavily embedded with v0 Vercel
I could not agree with you more .. I have lost a week worth of development, almost feel sabotaged … Now even if I ask for something simple like a button txt change or colour it absolutely ruins everything and leaves me with just the button and nothing else … I have made an attempt everyday to bind one button to a function and still I have not achieved this. I have been working with v0 for 6 months and swore by it over everything else .. Now I don’t see this project being delivered even to MVP … 
A Complete Breakdown: The Vercel/v0 vs. Community Crisis – Why We’re Here and What Needs to Change
To the Vercel Team, v0 Product Leadership, and the Community,
This post is an attempt to consolidate the extensive, deeply felt, and overwhelmingly negative feedback regarding the recent v0 pricing changes and the ongoing product instability. It’s clear we are at a critical juncture. The current dialogue, often filtered through intermediaries, is failing to address the core issues, and user trust is hemorrhaging. This is not just about a pricing model; it’s about the fundamental relationship between Vercel and its users.
I. The Core Conflict: A Chasm of Perspective
-
Vercel’s Stated Position (As Perceived by the Community):
-
“Our inference costs are token-based, and normalizing to a ‘message’ is hard.”
-
“Competitors charge more per message (e.g., $.25c+), so our median message cost (e.g., $.08) is fairer.”
-
“We’re moving to a transparent, future-proof model like frontier AI labs (credit pool & burndown).”
-
“We’re working on fixing bugs and making v0 more efficient; share your chat IDs.”
-
-
The Community’s Experienced Reality:
-
“We are now directly paying for every bug, error, loop, and inefficient generation v0 produces. This is fundamentally unfair.”
-
“This is a massive, effective price hike (10x-100x for many), making v0 unusable for serious development or iteration.”
-
“The ‘median cost’ is irrelevant when single errors cost dollars, and multiple attempts are needed for basic tasks due to v0’s unreliability.”
-
“Predictability is gone. Value is destroyed. This feels like a bait-and-switch.”
-
“V0 is an application layer on top of APIs. We shouldn’t bear the full, uncontrolled cost of its internal inefficiencies as if we were using a raw API.”
-
II. Vercel’s Actions & Communication (The Community’s Viewpoint):
-
Deceptive Marketing: The “Improved v0 Pricing” announcement was perceived as dishonest and insulting given the actual user impact.
-
Sudden & Poorly Communicated Transition: Many users felt blindsided by the abrupt change with inadequate warning or explanation of real-world cost implications.
-
Dismissive Justifications: The repeated talking points about inference costs and selective competitor comparisons (often copy-pasted from leadership tweets) fail to address the community’s core grievance: paying for v0’s failures.
-
Lack of Leadership Engagement: The absence of direct, substantive engagement from key v0 leadership (like Jared Palmer) in these detailed community complaint threads is glaring. Relying on PR/Community staff to relay messages feels like a buffer, not a dialogue. Curated “positive feedback” on other platforms while the official forums are on fire is seen as disrespectful.
-
Focus on Tactical Bug-Fixing Over Strategic Policy: While collecting chat IDs to fix individual bugs is necessary, it sidesteps the strategic problem that the pricing policy itself is what makes these bugs financially ruinous for users.
-
Insufficient Acknowledgment of Financial Hardship: There’s been little genuine acknowledgment of the severe financial stress and project disruption this has caused for individuals and businesses.
-
The “Open Source” Question & Financial Viability: If Vercel cannot afford to run v0 under a model that doesn’t penalize users for its flaws, the community feels Vercel should be transparent about this. The suggestion to open-source v0 has arisen from a desire to save a beloved idea if the corporate entity can’t or won’t support it fairly.
III. The Community’s Reality & Response:
-
Financial Burn: Users are reporting $20 credits vanishing in hours, sometimes for little to no useful output, making budgeting impossible.
-
Productivity Collapse: Projects are stalled, deadlines missed, and development workflows crippled due to both v0’s instability and the anxiety of unpredictable costs.
-
Erosion of Trust & Betrayal: This is perhaps the most significant damage. Users who championed v0 and Vercel now feel betrayed, ignored, and treated as expendable.
-
Exodus to Alternatives: Many are actively canceling subscriptions and migrating to competitors like Cursor, Windsurf, and others perceived to offer better value or fairer models.
-
Widespread Instability: Beyond pricing, the forums are filled with reports of v0 being slow, freezing, generating incomplete code, failing deployments, and other critical bugs, making the new pricing even more intolerable.
-
Inefficient & Insecure Feedback Mechanisms: Relying on public forum posts for chat IDs is seen as inefficient and a potential security concern for users with sensitive projects.
IV. The Communication Breakdown – Why It Feels Like We’re Not Being Heard:
-
Talking Past Each Other: Vercel discusses its costs; users discuss their value and the fairness of the charges. These are not the same conversation.
-
Filtered Feedback: There’s a strong perception that feedback relayed through intermediaries (community managers who are not on the v0 core team) loses its impact and urgency.
-
“Listening” vs. “Acting”: While Vercel staff say they are “passing feedback to the v0 team,” there’s little visible evidence that this feedback is leading to fundamental reconsideration of the core pricing strategy that users find objectionable. Pauline’s response (post #79 in the “Updated v0 pricing” thread), which essentially reiterated earlier justifications, was a key moment that solidified this feeling for many.
-
Jacob Paris’s Engagement: While Jacob is actively trying to help with technical debugging, his statement that “Those stalls, errors, and failed generations cost Vercel money too” highlights the disconnect. Yes, it costs Vercel, but under the new model, it costs users directly and immediately out of their pockets, which is a fundamentally different and more painful experience.
V. The Path Forward – What the Community Needs to See:
This is not just about mollifying angry users; it’s about salvaging a product with immense potential and rebuilding a fractured relationship.
- Genuine Leadership Engagement & Accountability:
-
Direct Dialogue: The core v0 product and engineering leadership, including Jared Palmer, need to engage directly in these community forums, without PR filters.
-
Sincere Apology & Acknowledgement: Acknowledge the missteps in this rollout, the validity of user concerns, and the damage to trust.
- Immediate Financial Relief & Policy Reversal/Overhaul:
-
Pause the current model or provide a massive, immediate injection of credits/drastic reduction in token costs to approximate previous value.
-
Fundamentally rethink the policy of charging users for tokens consumed due to v0’s errors, loops, and inefficiencies. This is non-negotiable for regaining user trust.
- Radical Transparency:
- Share real data on v0 usage, error rates, and the actual economics that necessitated this change. If the old model was unsustainable, be honest about why and by how much.
- Product Reliability First:
- Aggressively stabilize v0. It is unacceptable to charge premium, per-token rates for a product that is, by many accounts, still behaving like a beta.
- A Fair, Sustainable, and Co-Designed Pricing Model:
-
Explore models that are predictable, offer clear value, and are accessible. This could include higher flat-rate tiers, more generous token allowances, or systems that explicitly don’t charge for AI-generated errors.
-
If Vercel cannot sustainably offer v0 under such a model, have the courage to state this and seriously consider open-sourcing the v0 application layer.
VI. Conclusion: The Future of v0 and Vercel’s Reputation is at Stake
Many of us loved v0. We saw its transformative potential. Our current anger and disappointment are proportional to that initial enthusiasm. We want to use and support a great product from a company that respects its users.
Vercel, you are at a crossroads. You can continue down this path of dismissive PR and user-hostile pricing, which will inevitably lead to the decline of v0 and irreparable damage to your broader reputation. Or, you can choose to genuinely listen, demonstrate humility, take decisive corrective action, and work with your community to build a sustainable and fair future for v0.
We are not just data points on a spreadsheet; we are the developers, creators, and businesses who chose to invest our time, money, and trust in your vision. We implore you to treat that investment with the respect it deserves. The time for canned responses is over. The time for genuine dialogue and decisive, positive action is now.
We are watching. We are waiting. And many of us are hoping – still – for a reason to believe again.
Very elegantly put, accurate and to the point… I too am hoping for a favourable outcome so let’s hope that these concerns fall upon the correct desk and something is actioned. I find it intolerable to no longer be able to, not only not budget, but more importantly estimate my time lines..
I do hope we are heard but something tells me otherwise… Regardless of the outcome, this was one great product, only now I am struggling to see all that I once had …
We want a real answer, not just the usual HR script.
It’s been two full days and we’ve heard nothing, yet you keep charging us for generations full of errors, broken code, and incomplete outputs.
You stay silent while our credits vanish.
This is not acceptable. We deserve transparency, accountability, and compensation for the mess this rollout has caused.
#SaveV0
Sadly, this is the end of v0 for me. You guys built an incredible tool — it wasn’t perfect, but it allowed me to achieve great things in no time. In the end, however, you chose to kill it just to become more profitable… such a waste of potential.
I’ve truly loved the V0 product.
It represented hope for me—a service that supported what I genuinely wanted to build. Using V0 to create something meaningful and share it with others brought me real joy.
For what it has offered so far, I am deeply grateful.
Of course, I understand that Vercel’s sustainability matters, and I anticipated a transition toward subscription plans, perhaps at $50 or $100 per month.
However, I cannot agree with the structure or the process behind the recent pricing change.
Under the new model, credits are consumed by nearly every action—even when errors occur. AI processes are triggered without clear intent from the user, yet those costs are passed onto us. It no longer feels like we’re paying for value or innovation, but rather for Vercel’s miscalculations. We are the source of your revenue—not your ATM.
Grey’s post captured our shared concerns with remarkable clarity.
Several Japanese companies, including mine, have already begun transitioning to platforms like Google AI Studio and Jules.