How does this work?
Suppose I have £0 in my account and was have £1000 limit.
I transfer all £1000 overdraft into my goals/ saving whatever, earning an interest, whilst my “main account” is -£1000 and incur no overdraft charges because my account balance is £0.
In other words Starling is paying me interest with no money being paid into the account at all?
Sounds like a broken product and is unsustainable for a business?
No. You will Not be paid interest, because you are overdrawn by £1000.
except you won’t be overdrawn 
???
Yes. Your account is overdrawn, as your account comprises all of your account both in and out of pots. You are overdrawn in this £1000 scenario and you are liable to overdraft interest.
You have zero
It’s like a maths class 
Yeah, but secondary school stuff, methinks 
But your overdrawn (in the main account) because you’ve moved it to a pot. Main balance is -1000 and pot balance is +1000
Yeeeeeeeesssss 
This thread is like a disinformation campaign because it’s a better offer than Monzo’s overdraft. It’s madness I tell you!! 
Regardless of which system you think is better, this debate highlights the need for absolute clarity, when a bank changes a fundamental system such as overdrafts and interest payments (although, I do think some people seem to be intent on making it harder to understand).
Even with such a minor change like the way Starling deals with “goals” and interest on the overall account, there is clearly a need for an explanation about how it works, as it clearly isn’t understood by everyone.
Personally, I think that changes like this are very necessary, and if it means that there is a bit more pain now, for an easier route down the line, then I’m all for it.
You won’t be able to “disrupt” the banking industry (to coin a Monzo phrase), by simply repeating the same practices as the old banks.
Can you give an example because I haven’t seen that
No. You can search though. I’m at work.
The only time you will not be overdrawn on Starling is when you have MORE money in your goals than the rest of your account, as your account is in credit.
When you have LESS money in your pots than any negative amount outside pots then the total account balance is overdrawn and you will pay overdraft interest.
The only difference between Starling and Monzo is that…they base overdraft interest on the complete account balance (including goals) not a partial account balance (I.e. the account minus pots).
Here are two examples:
Example 1
+£20 account balance at both banks.
+£50 in a pot or goal
-£30 in rest of the account
Starling do not charge an overdraft fee as your account is not overdrawn, it is in credit by £20.
Monzo do charge an overdraft fee despite the fact your account is in credit and you are not overdrawn, as they are not taking the part of your account held in pots into account!
Example 2.
-£30 account balance at both banks.
+£50 in a pot or goal
-£80 in rest of the account
Starling charge you an overdraft fee based on your total account balance being overdrawn by £30
Monzo charge you an overdraft fee based on part of your account being overdrawn by £80, despite your overdrawing only being £30, because they are not basing it on your account balance but only on part of your account less any money held in pots.
The idea of pots was to help budgeting, but operating their overdraft calculation in this manner, Monzo makes the use of pots, by the very people who could benefit from them most, something that will increase their costs not help them manage them!
Im not going around in circles again and being accused of trolling you know my view , I know your view
It is not a view, it is a fact, i.e. how the overdraft fee is levied.
Starling base their overdraft calculation on the account balance.
Monzo do not base their overdraft calculation on the account balance, despite their terms stating they do.
They base their charges on only part of their account, i.e exclude that part of the account balance held in pots.
Their terms should be changed to clarify the fact that you can be charged for an overdraft even when your account is not overdrawn…if you use pots.
It is just a matter of the small print being corrected to reflect the way they levy charges!
I think we all know both sets of views so I agree that restating either of them again is pretty much redundant at this point! 
Adding labels like ‘fact’, ‘fiction’ or anything else really doesn’t change the price of fish and is probably just inflammatory at this point. 
I believe what @anon44204028 was saying, is that whilst you can have “views” and “debate” opinions about services (not liking the way Starling or Monzo doing something, is an opinion) - Stating factual information about how they operate is different.
That is a fact - There is no debating this, there are no “views” that can change this factual statement.
You can argue “I prefer Monzo’s way”, but you can’t dispute or misinterpret this fact.
The content of this thread suggests otherwise! 
My experience of people is that just about anything can be disputed or misinterpreted. My point was more that I don’t understand why we need to go round the same buoy so many times re-stating things that have already been stated but getting more strident every time. It tends to weaken the argument being made (something I need to learn better in real life).
It’s a sad state of affairs when talking about facts is considered inflammatory 
But I guess we live in a “post truth world”, so it makes sense …
OK, now that’s just silly.