Hey everyone! 👋 I’ve been working on a coding project for about a month using MonkeyCode AI, and I’m really enjoying building it. My project has grown quite a lot, and now I want to take it all the way to completion. The problem is that MonkeyCode’s free usage has been reduced from around 30 million tokens to 10 million tokens. Since my project is getting bigger, sometimes even fixing a small bug can use up most or all of my daily tokens, which is making it difficult to continue. So I wanted to ask the community for some advice on two things: 1. Is there a good free alternative? I’m looking for a cloud-based AI coding tool that offers a decent amount of free usage/tokens and can handle larger coding projects, debugging, and code changes. I’ve looked into running open-source models locally, but my PC isn’t powerful enough to comfortably run large coding models. So I’m specifically looking for something cloud-based. 2. Should I pay for MonkeyCode? The other option I’m considering is buying MonkeyCode’s paid plan because I really like my project and want to finish it. I’ve also looked at subscriptions for other coding AI tools, but many of their more powerful plans are around $100+, which is quite expensive for me. MonkeyCode’s most expensive plan is around $60, which seems much more reasonable. However, MonkeyCode isn’t as well-known as some other coding AI tools, and I haven’t found many detailed reviews from people who have actually purchased and used the paid plan. So I’m a little worried about spending $60 and then finding out that the subscription doesn’t provide as much usage as I expected or that there are other limitations. What would you recommend in my situation? - Should I buy MonkeyCode’s ~$60 plan? - Is there a better or cheaper alternative for a large coding project? - If anyone here has actually used MonkeyCode’s paid plan, how much usage/tokens did you get, and what was your experience? I’d really appreciate any advice or recommendations. 🙏

Strategy Pack Breakdown 4/5: VWAP Reclaim The fourth strategy in my trading agent’s strategy pack is VWAP Reclaim. This strategy is intended for a stock that lost VWAP or traded below it, then attempts to recover that level with improving structure. A VWAP touch is not a reclaim, and a single candle closing above VWAP does not prove that buyers have regained control. The system looks for evidence that the recovery is being accepted. That can include: - A prior loss or meaningful test of VWAP - A controlled recovery rather than a single erratic spike - Price holding above VWAP after reclaiming it - Improving short-term structure - Renewed volume or participation - Alignment with the broader trend and momentum state - A clearly defined failure point - Adequate room before resistance - No confirmed exhaustion or repeated VWAP failure This strategy should reject a reclaim when price only wicks above VWAP, participation remains weak, overhead resistance is too close, spread or liquidity is unsafe, or price repeatedly crosses VWAP without establishing control. That last condition matters. In a choppy market, VWAP can become a magnet rather than meaningful support. Repeated crossing should not generate repeated entry authority. The strategy’s core question is: Has VWAP changed from resistance back into supported structure, or is price merely oscillating around an average? This setup can also overlap visually with First Pullback or Trend Continuation. The distinction should come from the event that creates authority: - First Pullback begins with the first healthy retracement after an impulse. - VWAP Reclaim begins with the recovery and acceptance of a previously lost VWAP. - Trend Continuation begins from an already established and still-healthy trend structure. I’d appreciate feedback: 1. What proves a VWAP reclaim has been accepted? 2. How many failed reclaim attempts should disqualify the opportunity? 3. Should participation be required on the reclaim candle, the hold above VWAP, or both? 4. How would you distinguish a reclaim from ordinary VWAP chop?

Strategy Pack Breakdown 2/5: First Pullback The second strategy in my trading agent’s strategy pack is First Pullback. This strategy is designed for the first controlled retracement after a qualifying momentum impulse. The word “first” is important. A stock that makes a strong move often needs to pause before continuing. The goal is not to buy simply because price moved down from a high. The system must determine whether the pullback is healthy consolidation or the beginning of a failed move. Evidence supporting a healthy first pullback can include: - A legitimate initial impulse - Reduced selling volume during the retracement - Price holding confirmed support, VWAP, or applicable EMA structure - No confirmed exhaustion or false breakout - A clearly defined invalidation level - Renewed participation as price challenges the pullback pivot - Enough remaining reward to justify the risk The pullback itself is not the entry. The strategy waits for evidence that buyers are regaining control. It should refuse the setup when selling accelerates, important support fails, price cannot recover structure, the initial move was already exhausted, or the proposed entry would be too extended from its invalidation point. A second or third pullback does not automatically inherit First Pullback authority. By then, the market structure and probability may be materially different. The core question is: Did a strong move pause constructively and resume, or did momentum fail and produce a temporary bounce inside a reversal? That distinction is difficult because both situations can look similar for several candles. I’d appreciate feedback on the boundary: 1. What evidence tells you a pullback is healthy rather than the start of a breakdown? 2. Should the loss of VWAP always invalidate the setup, or can immediate recovery preserve it? 3. What should prevent the system from relabeling every later dip as another “first” pullback?

Strategy Pack Breakdown 1/5: Gap & Go The first strategy in my trading agent’s strategy pack is Gap & Go. Its purpose is to evaluate a stock that enters the session with a meaningful gap and strong early attention, then determine whether that momentum has enough structure to support an entry. The gap itself is not the trade. Before this strategy can advance, the system needs evidence that the move is being accepted rather than immediately sold into. That includes factors such as: - A legitimate momentum context - Fresh and reliable market data - Price holding meaningful opening structure - Constructive behavior around VWAP - Expanding participation when resistance is challenged - Sufficient room before the next major resistance area - Acceptable spread, liquidity, extension, and risk A stock can appear on the scanner, rank highly, and still be refused by this strategy. The setup becomes unsafe when price is already excessively extended, participation deteriorates, opening support fails, VWAP is lost without recovery, or the apparent breakout is rejected. This strategy is intentionally selective because one of the easiest mistakes in small-cap momentum trading is confusing a strong morning percentage gain with a safe entry. The strategy’s actual question is: Is this opening move still building from supported momentum, or would entry mean chasing momentum that has already spent itself? Gap & Go does not receive permission to reinterpret a failed opening move as a pullback, reversal, or continuation trade. If its defining conditions disappear, its authority ends and the system either evaluates the opportunity under another valid strategy or takes no trade. I’d appreciate criticism from other builders and traders: 1. What evidence best distinguishes genuine opening acceptance from a temporary gap spike? 2. Which failure condition should immediately invalidate a Gap & Go setup? 3. How would you prevent this strategy from entering after the safest part of the move has already occurred?

Work in IT and want to learn how to be a trader. Trading through automation ... yes please. Make money while I sleep.