The token cap is the least interesting number in your AI budget Somewhere in your company right now, someone is trying to decide whether an employee should get $100, $300, or $1,000 a month of AI spend. It is a real question with a real invoice behind it, and it is also the wrong place to start, because there is no cap number that is defensible on its own.
The token cap is the least interesting number in your AI budget Somewhere in your company right now, someone is trying to decide whether an employee should get $100, $300, or $1,000 a month of AI spend.
I got into this with Tomer Elias, a product executive who has spent fifteen years around AI and data, including the first AI lab in Israel, a cybersecurity unicorn, and a committee defining agentic identity...
It is a real question with a real invoice behind it, and it is also the wrong place to start, because there is no cap number that is defensible on its own.
The page is ready to read now. The fuller skim-friendly version will appear here automatically.
The token cap is the least interesting number in your AI budget Somewhere in your company right now, someone is trying to decide whether an employee should get $100, $300, or $1,000 a month of AI spend. It is a real question with a real invoice behind it, and it is also the wrong place to start, because there is no cap number that is defensible on its own. Set it low and you throttle the experiments that would have told you something.
Start with the mechanics of the decision, because they explain the deadlock. The uncomfortable part, which Tomer names directly, is that the ladder mostly measures your organization, not your AI. Tomer put it in the terms the finance side of the house recognizes: "AI puts the credit card at the hand of the employees.
Without the oversight and training, costs can spiral.
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.