We would like to provide feedback regarding the current AI credit consumption policy.
In its current form, the credit system does not feel fair or aligned with real user value. While AI features can be helpful in producing design ideas or accelerating workflows, the current implementation consumes credits at a relatively high rate—even in cases where the generated output is not fully usable or requires multiple iterations to reach an acceptable result.
This creates a situation where users are effectively charged not only for successful or meaningful outputs, but also for incomplete or suboptimal generations that still require additional prompts and refinement. As a result, the cost of experimentation and iteration becomes disproportionately high, especially for designers who rely on trial-and-error workflows.
We believe this approach may negatively impact long-term user experience and satisfaction. Many long-time users who have been part of the Figma ecosystem for years may reconsider their continued usage if AI features remain tied to such restrictive consumption mechanics.
AI should enhance creativity and productivity—not introduce friction or hesitation in the creative process. When users begin to limit their exploration due to credit concerns, the core value of these tools becomes diminished.
We strongly encourage reconsideration of the current credit consumption model, either by:
- reducing credit cost per iteration,
- improving the accuracy and usefulness of generated outputs,
- or introducing more forgiving evaluation metrics that distinguish between low-quality and high-value generations.
Otherwise, there is a real risk that users may gradually migrate to alternative platforms that offer more flexible or transparent AI usage models.
We appreciate the effort behind integrating AI into Figma, but believe that a more balanced and user-centric credit policy would significantly improve adoption, trust, and long-term engagement.
