The project looks cool, but I'd strongly recommend against the per-task pricing.
This makes budgeting & forecasting difficult to impossible for a lot of teams, and creates wrong incentives. It is better to have a per user pricing, and then allow them to use as much as they want.
Threw me off at first as well. I was thinking of tasks per month. But this seems to be just pay as you go top-ups. Makes sense from a freelancer perspective. If I have work, I top-up my account. If there is none, I don't feel pressure like from all the other monthly subscriptions.
Pay as you go is better for all but the heaviest of users. The low cost per task and topping up a balance make it one less thing to think about, one less monthly fee, and will almost certainly result in cheaper cost per month.
It's the same reason why I use api keys from all of the LLM providers rather than pay monthly fees to any one individual company. It's $5-10/mo vs. ~$80/mo.
I love this pricing model as a potential customer. The cost is so little that it wouldn't be a deterrent. This is way better than another subscription.
There's a lot of problems trying to run a business with this model though IMO (forecasting, recurring expenses, etc.). I hope it works out for them though!
I like the pricing - I think its interesting. But I think the author should just give the option to do one or the other. Unlimited at $10/month or per task.
This makes budgeting & forecasting difficult to impossible for a lot of teams, and creates wrong incentives. It is better to have a per user pricing, and then allow them to use as much as they want.