LLMs make PRs cheaper to create than to review (many to one relationship).In my case, as a repo maintainer, I usually run my prompts and workflow to review a lot of the code that comes in, and I end up paying for every unsolicited PR.I was wondering: why don t LLM suppliers support ephemeral, PR-scoped usage keys funded by the contributor? Like a review bond.For example: usable only by the maintainer, only for this repo/PR, hard capped at a low $ amount or N tokens, with a short expiry. Enough to run the maintainer s review workflow without making review cost entirely one sided.Why isn t this billing type offered by any major player?ps: inspired by the thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48497609) about asking for human attention and demonstrating human effort, a kind of proof of work , this case could be classified as an attention bond .