As a thought exercise it is interesting to think through what we would &#x27;trade&#x27; though. For the S3 case there could be a hard cap of allocation, but once it is reached then does the service just switch off? Could it just respond to, say, 100 requests per second, as a ratio of how much money you want to spend in some time period?<p>For Lambda style services it&#x27;s odd because if I was hosting them in my own container (or an AWS one even) then they would still accept requests but their responses would start to slow (but still work). Trading through-put for cost&#x2F;scalability?<p>The trouble with AWS services for that &#x27;fear of success&#x27; type of budgeting (different from losing a key or malicious calls) is they are either on or off, with no in-between cost&#x2F;latency&#x2F;resource allocation ratio.<p>I&#x27;m surprised this hasn&#x27;t come up more actually (or I just missed it), considering the overlap between devs that would like less devops and devs with limited budgets..