Before you change anything, work out which of the two kinds of limit you hit — the fixes are different.
The first is the published API quota: a per-endpoint, per-window number that returns explicit headers. The second is behavioural enforcement: the platform decides your pattern looks automated and slows or blocks it. They feel similar and are diagnosed differently.
The published quota is arithmetic. The behavioural one is a judgement call, which is why it is inconsistent across accounts.
Check the quota headers and the error body on the failing call. If the quota is exhausted, you are in the first case and the fix is scheduling. If the quota is fine but writes still fail, you are in the second.
Compare a failing account against a healthy one on the same machine: if one works and one does not, it is per-account. If both fail, look at the egress.
First slow down: reduce write frequency and daily totals before changing anything structural. Second, spread writes out instead of bursting. Third, check whether content is duplicated across accounts. Only after those, consider changing the environment.
Changing egress or fingerprint is the heaviest lever — do it deliberately and keep the fingerprint matched to the egress.
If a single account is limited while others on the same egress are fine, it is a per-account issue: slow that account down. If every account on one egress degrades together, the egress is the common factor.
Write this down as you go. Without a record, you end up changing three things at once and learning nothing.
No. Limits are throttling, not a ban. Slow down, stop the pattern that triggered it, and keep the account's other behaviour normal.
Not first. Slowdown and staggering resolve most cases, and changing the environment without a reason creates new variables you cannot account for.
It helps by spacing writes, but a queue that keeps sending at the same daily volume does not fix the volume problem.
Before you change anything, work out which of the two kinds of limit you hit — the fixes are different.