I agree that they would help but I don’t need most of those things either. Perhaps this is why they’ve not jumped at the chance to provide them?
Remember though that “full Monzo” (which I believe is a term they’ve now dropped), was only to have your salary and at least one direct debit setup. None of those things prevent you from doing this.
YES!
Wint is the best.
Maybe thats where the problem lays… is the goal not still “make money work for everyone” or has that changed also? 
Agreed, intention should be to encourage people to use Monzo as their primary account, all those things i listed would surely do that by removing the reliance on secondary accounts to do basic banking things.
Other than going all in on the premium accounts what is the aim and goals on how to increase the profitability im not too sure or at least the messaging isnt too clear.
Getting sidetracked though a bit from the thread so ill leave it there, hopefully in the coming weeks we all get a better idea of monzo’s intentions going forward.
True but when it comes to building a successful business it’s always better to please more people than you already are.
The problem with this is that section is mainly focused around those who for the most part have already chosen monzo.
Banking features that are available elsewhere but not in monzo are the types of features that will attract those who bank elsewhere whether current monzo customers want them or not.
Perhaps but I think it’s the features that the forum users here don’t ‘need’ are arguably the features that are needed most in order to attract those customers that aren’t already here. 
This is no longer a requirement. The other director in my company only has access to the business account, and another business account they’ve since CASS’d over. No personal account at all.
Do you imply that it should free, or just more reliable? I don’t think offering free deposits via a paid service, will help profitability.
What they’ve done technically, is beyond what most modern banks can achieve. Fintechs have often been approached by (and worked with) legacy banks on improving their systems because they can’t move as quickly because they’re carrying so much dead weight with them. There’s a number of talks on YouTube that reference this.
We see this come up on the forum a lot: “I don’t pay for X”. Nothing in life is free. Period. You pay for TV in one of two ways:
(a) via your TV license (for the BBC);
(b) through your time, because of advertisers.
Even if you’re watching on catch-up, you’ll be subjected to adverts. It’s literally costing you in time. Our society doesn’t seem to acknowledge time as a transactional commodity. I’m particularly irked by this, as being heavily involved in the software world, I get very frustrated by clients using the phrase “but we don’t pay for this bit of functionality with X company”, whilst ignoring the data they’re giving away for free, or their time invested in watching/viewing ads.
This has been mentioned in other threads, but when moving house, the large deposits are never time-critical on your part - you’re given a window (often weeks) in which to move the deposit to your solicitor, who orchestrates the final transfer (and charges you for doing so). The very fact Monzo is willing to allow a higher faster payment through, rather than forcing you to pay £30 for CHAPS, should be commended. My legacy bank for my first house purchase, got really funny when I suggested I’d make the transfers in smaller amounts across the course of a week to avoid paying the £30.
Look at this from a different perspective - if Monzo’s goal is to increase their deposits, yet they make it seamlessly easy to increase your limits for outbound faster payments… Which bank is going to become an (even bigger) target for fraud? The contact via chat/phone is positive friction in my eyes.
No sorry but there’s no adverts on anything I watch so sorry to burst your bubble, like I said I don’t pay for TV or subscription services
Do you actually watch TV?
I think the precedence has been set an it has to be free.
I personally never understood charging for this… if they have to put a lower limit of say £30 to push out the edge cases to make it on average be worth more than it costs then do so.
Adding money to the account then opens it up to generating revenue from the other aspects of the person using their account with that money.
Again I see your point but I have to say that when I get around to buying my first home (the main and probably only time i would need raised limits) I would like zero friction to an already stressful situation and another chance for me to mess something up when im in an unfamiliar situation.
There are 2 other options.
(c ) subscribe to premium ad-free on demand subscription services like Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV+, etc. TV license is only required if you watch live tv as it is broadcast on TV, or if you watch BBC iplayer.
(d) don’t watch tv.
I don’t want to derail the thread over a series of posts, but just humor me. What do you watch to avoid (a) paying a TV license (“tax”), (b) avoiding adverts?
Fair point, but you’re still “paying”. The original point was “TV is free”, which it fundamentally isn’t, even if you don’t directly put your hand in your pocket for some cash.
Whilst legacy banks have always done it this way, and Starling have followed suit, a year (or two? or three?) back there was noise around the Post Office increasing their fees for banks, as many of the individual offices are loss-making and slowly being closed. If we were to lose the post office in as many locations as we have them now, at least the PayPoint system is so widespread. Not to mention the fact I (personally) avoid our local post office as the queue is in excess of an hour most days (even before COVID).
And on the topic of COVID, are cash payments going to become less frequent, to the point that maintaining that relationship with the post office, stops becoming a viable option? Businesses already have to pay for their banking services when paying in cash, in most scenarios, so there’s already precedent for charging for payments inbound.
I’d double check your legacy banks faster payment limits, as whilst the faster payment scheme supports up to a 6 figure value, banks regularly do not let you access this limit as standard, with most (if not all) forcing you down the CHAPS route as an alternative.
Nationwide - 10K
Barclays - 10K (personal, it’s higher if you’re on a premium tier)
RBS - 20K
Lloyds BG - 25K
There is a whole topic on this below, and most of this is arguing over the interpretation of what does or doesn’t require a licence. tl;dr it’s not really clear. 
There’s a saying that “If you’re not paying for using a service, then you’re the product.” This is clearly true of Facebook, which is essentially a tool for advertisers to better target their ads at users, who get the service without paying anything. It’s also true of terrestrial TV and a whole range of other services.
It’s clearly not true of banking, where the rules around the type of ad targeting are stringent - though obviously the larger banks use their knowledge of customers to cross-sell them other products. Many also have services that allow them to target discounted offers from retailers in exchange for a cut. For example, Lloyds has Everyday Offers. And traditionally, banks over the majority of their costs through lending. Traditionally, costs are covered by overdraft charges levied on those who can least afford it.
This is not true of Monzo - which means that if their service is free to customers, who’s paying? Clearly they make some money from card usage, but until now, the bulk of the cost has been borne by investors - mostly venture capital firms.
I don’t think it’s unfair to question the sustainability of their current business model, but I do think they’re still attractive as a disruptor and innovator - and if they couldn’t find a better business model, they’d still be an attractive acquisition. Even paying full price for them would be just pocket money to a company like Apple.
I don’t think it is that black and white anymore, with some legacy banks at least. Need to deposit a cheque? No problem. Need to call someone and talk to a human right away - no problem. Need a polished app? Well, getting there slowly.
Seriously, go and use the Barclays app as your main banking interface for a month and then go back to Monzo. It’s very different.
The legacy banks spent too much screen space trying to refer and sell other products to you in a way which is quite intrusive.
The overall interface is very clunky.
There is a different between having a good interface for day to day banking and having xyz features such as paying in cheques. These are two different points
Yes I can pay in cheques with legacy banks but I only need to once a year, and I’ve managed never speaking to an actual person on the phone with Monzo even when buying a property.
This is why I said ‘some’. I didn’t say all legacy banks are great. Actually, I didn’t say any are. Not really sure what point you are disagreeing with.
Its 25k yeah with my legacy. In saying that i dont mind that part as its the process i have a problem with with monzo.
You can potentially send a message the day before potentially not depending on the COp you get it seems. If on the day you send the message its a guess as to what time youll get confirmation through in app chat potentially could be end of day.
Its that added level of stress and unnecessary waiting time where im thinking ok will this be ok or wont it which will make me side with my legacy who i can contact and be pretty confident ill get through to someone straight away and get it sorted there and then.
As for the paypoint vs post office point again i dont want to start up the pros and cons for both as there is a whole thread that discusses that.
My original point was on blockers to people getting money into their account to use it as their primary account. I do think having only paypoint is a blocker, if monzo used post office it would be hard to argue that it wouldnt utilised by alot of current account and business accounts
Edit: just to add also i dont think monzo could be happy with the current process considering how much they want to cut down the amount of people using the chat functionality. It makes sense for them to find a better automated way that gives users more confidence in the process and also benefits monzo by reducing chat queues
I agree the Monzo process of requesting raising limits can be very hit and miss which needs sorting out , on the other hand people tend to want to hang on to their money until the very last day of the house selling process with all the stresses this holds even with legacy banking , the number of times Ive sold houses and the funds from the seller haven’t arrived when expected
Discussion about Monzo’s 2020 annual report over here please:
Keep it polite and respect the code of conduct, though, please!