Now that the tech team is getting that bug fixed and site updated, wanted to address the multisite thing. First and foremost, completely agreed this is something we want to solve. The way we look at it is likely different (which might make us wrong!), but boils down to:

Allowing people who are running one group of sites (universities with student sites, for example) to have a *fair* price, while not giving pricing that is too low to people who simply run sites for others (ie: devs who have 100 client sites).

The reason for this isn't because we want to be asshats who charge as much as possible (if we were, we wouldn't have the prices for the features that we do), but about the fact that there is an additional cost for certain types of sites, while other sites have a basically nominal cost.

As an example, the fake university above may have additional integration or reporting requirements (which we do for some customers on a one-off basis), but after they are up it is the same technical cost to run 100 sites as 10,000 because students will almost never need to restore their sites based on how students use the sites. It just isn't critical data.

However if a dev has 500 clients on one multi-site instance, it's actually the complete opposite. They want to be able to roll out the product quickly, but because it is for clients' sites, clients will be doing restores, asking support questions, needing training and the per-user support/technical/training cost to us is actually significant because devs and consultants (as they should) view us as the provider and want us to solve the issues.

So while it might make sense to charge the same (random number) $500/month for a university with 100 sites as 10,000, it doesn't make sense to charge a dev the same $500 for 100 sites vs 500.

We simply don't know where the sweet spot is yet. We want feedback from the community, but given every dev/consultant I know passes this backup cost along to the client, what we want is to find a model that's fair for everyone (and where we don't end up having to hire 2 full time support people just to support a single customer who is only paying $200/month!).