What I actually said:
We are pointing out this “feature” is something that essentially exists at every bank where you can open more than one current account, just under a different name."
I was referring to the feature existing at almost every bank, just called something different, not opening an account under a different name.
It’s the facility that has a different name. Monzo calls it bills pots. Other banks call it a separate account, but they’re essentially the same thing.
That makes sense - I read @Lightning720 as saying you should open a bank account under a pseudonym. Which would have been terrible advice.
I’m not entirely sure it’s comparable though. Monzo has built in a tool to segregate things in the one account, giving you visibility. I make no value judgement on that, just that that is a different thing to effectively reaching the same result but through multiple accounts.
I suppose with open banking it increases visibility of multiple accounts
Although if you use decided to pay each bill from a different pot, or categorise bills into several pots, then multiple accounts to replicate that sounds a nightmare
You don’t think having an account for spending and an account for bills is comparable to having an account for spending with a separate section for bills?
To maintain 6 or 7 different bank accounts just so you can pay a direct debit from each?
Sounds like way too much life admin
From my experiences, it is incredibly simple.
I think that having developed a feature that both segregates money, gives you a fallback payment option and provides visibility in one place is different to having two accounts, yes.
But this isn’t football: that can both be true and folk can prefer Starling - or two accounts at Lloyds. This is feeling very much like a zero sum battle to the death which is a bit silly. They’re just bank accounts. 
Considering I have pointed out Starling flaws multiple times and have only started using Starling recently, this isn’t true.
Considering I have pointed out things I like about Monzo, this isn’t true.
I know this forum doesn’t particularly like people who go against the common viewpoint, but that doesn’t mean our opinions are any less valid.
I’m glad that solution works for you but for me it’s a definite no
All I want is one bank account. That’s all I need
The nightmare is having separate pots for each bill and having to fill them up every month/week.
All my bills, apart from my credit card, are the same every month, so I’ve added them all up (you only have to do it once) and every month, the day after I get paid, that amount is transferred to my bills account where the bills get paid from. I don’t have to fiddle around doing this manually, either. The traditional banks have a marvellous tool called a standing order, which does this automatically for me.
It’s so much simpler than faffing around with bills pots. Of course, if bills pots works for you, that’s absolutely fine, but please don’t pretend that it’s essentially any different, or easier than having a separate bills account.
Salary sorter. Save sort. 1 tap and it’s done
So similar to standing orders then?
So it still needs manual intervention. Separate bills account, funded by standing order = no taps required.
It is different. For multiple reasons.
Not everyone has to bank in exactly the same way.
I mean salary sorter isn’t like a standing order - it’s a manual tap.
I have scheduled pot payments set up. Which are effectively like standing orders.
That’s… a good thing?
I think it’s a hell of a reach to call ‘open another bank account’ a feature.
Asda have a feature that if they’ve run out of a product you want you can go to Tesco
At this point I think I’m out.
I have a preference: I have no need to justify it to anyone.
Other folks will find stuff that works for them in other ways. They shouldn’t have to justify that. And that’s okay too.
Which is why throughout all of this, I have tried to use “feature” like that to show it isn’t a proper feature.