Thanks, I hope it will be eventually even if not at launch. Can you remember why it was limited to 5 in the first place?
1 Like
Cost, I imagine.
3 Likes
Out of interest, why would you require more than 5?
Sometimes I find myself wanting another one when I’m waiting for one to expire. Potentially with pay from pots I could see myself using them to budget I bit more.
2 Likes
If we’re in a world where people are budgeting from pots then I can imagine some folk wanting a card per pot.
You can have 20 pots so harmonising the limits might seem sensible!
10 Likes
There is/was a post from Monzo Towers acknowledging the wanting of more, I think it will be upped.
6 Likes
Yup. The 5 limit is sufficient for the current privacy/security spin on it, to segregate online spending things from your physical card, and reducing your exposure to potential data leaks. But throw in linking to pots and they become a powerful budgeting tool too, so there’s definitely going to be a need for more.
Currently, I’m using 4.
- Online spending
- PayPal
- Subscriptions (could be tied to a pot)
- Dodgy shops (also would benefit from linking to a pot that’s kept empty; so less destroying and recreating)
When pot linking arrives I’ll be wanting to add the following:
- Groceries
- Pets (could make do with grouping this under subscriptions)
- Travel
- PayPal Subscriptions (I’d rather not use my regular subscriptions card via PayPal, as this diminishes the initial privacy/security aspect to virtual cards, so would like a separate one for this, ideally able to link both this and my subscriptions card to the same pot)
- To share with a friend or family in a pinch (I’ll expand on this below)
- Who knows? Self destructing?
I think 10 would be a solid number to go with as functionality expands. I suspect pot linking will reduce the need to destroy and recreate card, as with the dodgy shops example, I can just leave it empty when I’m not using it. So the reduction in creating new cards could offset the costs involved with upping the limit, assuming that’s the reason for the limit.
#9 is there with the caveat that I have no idea if it would even be allowed under the terms, but sharing card details to add to Apple Pay has helped some folks out of tricky situations in the past, so that would be a good selling point for me, with the protections that come from ring fenced pots. I have in the past loaned card details to trusted friends and family members so that they can add it to Apple Pay in order to get that taxi ride home when they’re stranded without access to money. I could see virtual cards linked with pots being really great for this for a few reasons.
- Being able to provide them with a card to add to Apple Pay without handing over my actual card details.
- Funds being ring-fenced to a pot so they can’t go on a shopping spree at my expense.
- The ability to destroy the card when they’re done with it.
- Also great for when you’re self isolating and need to give someone your card to do the shopping. A benefit for some disabled folks in this sense too. Think the initial version of Starling’s connected card feature.
5 Likes
Would linked cards not then use your main balance if the pot didn’t have enough funds available in it? As with direct debits from a lot etc?
Surely having ability to set a limit to a virtual card would be more secure, as mentioned above, to stop people going on a spree at your expense etc?
I’ve not used a virtual card so not sure of the full functionality of it as a whole.
I would hope this isn’t the case for pots. Not a massive deal if it doesn’t though, as the functionality to delete the card will still exist, and I can just go the other way, with having funds kept in pots and my actual main account empty.
Would a balance not then be taken from another pot which isn’t locked?
I’m not 100% sure on all of the functionality and probably wouldn’t ever be in that situation, just curious on the mechanism as a payment linked to pot A would then head to the main balance if the pot didn’t have enough funds available, and if nothing in the main balance, would it not default to another as there is actually still funds available to use?
Curious to understand if that’s how a virtual card may also work.
Given how Monzo currently works, no. Your main account doesn’t draw from pots if you run out of money.
1 Like
I think this is another example of the complex rules that @mycl was talking about on another topic.
There’s so much to think through here with the aim that it’ll just feel intuitive and natural to use.
Personally, I think we’ll end up being in a situation where each pot will be treated as separate payments account: so you’ll be rejected if you don’t have enough money in it. To cope with overdrafts and the status quo for bills pots you might end up with a toggle to fall back to your main account/overdraft.
I think the proposed solution was trailed as something simple (and elegant?) which this would fit.
10 Likes
Which is a shame as it would allow you to keep a little in an ‘overdraft pot’. Maybe these changes to the behaviors and features of pots will also allow for this kind of functionality.
1 Like
I’m hoping they will.
My ideal “credit pot” would be a combined overdraft / loan / credit card credit line. But one that you could also have that would act as an offset if you added money to it. The amount you can go overdrawn is dependent on your terms but everyone can use it to create an offset sort of pot, even if you don’t pass the credit checks.
Alas it seems like this isn’t on the table. #sadface
1 Like
That sounds like a great idea to me
1 Like
I kind of asked this earlier and got the below response
It’s not a direct answer to my question but it seems promising? 
4 Likes
They look so nice, I think this is going to bring me back to Plus 
7 Likes
No update YET, hopefully we get it today
1 Like
Only 5? 
1 Like