The first question everyone asks
Is this allowed?
Short version: nobody shares an account, nobody shares a key, and no money moves. What gets shared is somebody's own time on their own plan. That distinction is the whole design, and the rest of this page is how it is enforced rather than promised.
Direct answer
Does anyone get access to my Claude account?
No. There is no field anywhere on this platform to enter an API key, a session token, or an account password, and there is no column in the database to store one. Not a policy we enforce — a thing that was never built. If someone asked us tomorrow to add credential sharing, it would be a schema change and a new feature, not a setting.
A pledge is a statement of intent: this week I have capacity I won’t use, and I’m willing to spend some of it on someone else’s problem. When a match is accepted, the person who pledged opens Claude Code on their own machine, signed into their own account, and works on the project. The output moves. The access never does.
The distinction
Contribution, not access
Sharing an account means two people using one subscription. That is a different thing and this is not it. What happens here is closer to how open source has always worked: somebody with time and tools spends both on a project that isn’t theirs, and an agreement decides who ends up owning the result.
The unit that gets pledged reflects this. CCU is a measure of a person’s own weekly allowance — one CCU is one percent of a Claude Pro week — so a pledge describes how much of their own capacity someone is willing to spend. It is not a token balance, it is not transferable, and it cannot be cashed out. It is a way of saying “about this much of my week” in a number both sides can plan around.
Money
Is anyone selling capacity here?
No. There is no payment processor connected to this platform, no balance, no payout, and no invoice. Nobody is charged to post a project and nobody is paid to fulfil one. The thing a contributor gets is whatever the agreement says they get — credit, a share of ownership, a stake in what gets built, or simply the satisfaction of the work.
This constrains the product in ways that are occasionally inconvenient and it stays that way deliberately. The moment capacity has a price, the thing being sold starts to look like plan access, which is the exact line this project exists on the right side of.
Affiliation
Is this an Anthropic product?
No. UseMyTokens is an independent community project. It is not affiliated with Anthropic, not endorsed by them, not operated by them, and not reviewed by them. The name describes what the site does; it does not imply a relationship that doesn’t exist.
Your call
What you should check yourself
Everything above describes how this platform is built. It is not legal advice and it is not a ruling on your particular plan. Anthropic’s terms are the authority on what your subscription permits, they can change, and you are the one who agreed to them. Read them and decide for yourself:
If you read them and conclude this isn’t for you, that is a completely reasonable conclusion and there is nothing here trying to argue you out of it.
If Anthropic ever says otherwise, that settles it. This project has no interest in operating in a grey area or in litigating a definition. If the people who run the platform we all depend on say this shouldn’t exist in this form, it changes or it stops.
The other question
Who owns what gets built?
Decided before any work starts, never after. Every engagement carries one of six agreements — sole ownership, equal split, a share proportional to contribution, MIT, public domain, or credit only — filled in with real names and real numbers, and signed by both sides. The rendered text is hashed when it goes out for signature and each signature stores the hash of what that person actually saw, so neither side can quietly change the wording after the fact.
These are plain-language starting points, not legal advice. If the project is worth real money, pay a lawyer to read the agreement before you sign it.