The race to SIX MILLION users is over

Transparency by default! Errm.

1 Like


Where you gone?


These things are, in my experience, massively overblown.

Imagine you’re the evil Board of Revling, intent on driving you out of business. You cackle as your latest act of corporate esionage delivers you a precise user number… What do you then use it for? How do you achieve competitive advantage?

The same goes for roadmaps and a whole load of things. If you’re confident in your product and trajectory it should change nothing. You make the climate, not respond to the weather.

The calculus here is the benefit of user engagement against the marginal (if any) harm of competitors having the information and the extra (?) publicity generated by a surprise press release. But again, how much more effective would the latter be against one that engaged users know is coming? Marginal, I suspect.


Where you gone?

tbh there wasn’t an announcement soo I assume I was wrong :frowning:

Might still be today

1 Like

Think I put 11/2 around 13:45 :sweat_smile:

Bingo. Sharing ideas/roadmaps/plans helps you build trust with users and gives them consistent clarity on the direction of travel. It absolutely does not help your competitors in any way, because it’s not the ideas themselves, it’s the execution. Virtually nobody is building things that have never existed, and no two companies are ever likely to be prioritising the same things at the same time.

This is pertinent for me right now as I try and make Twitter a more transparent company in my role.


We must be close to 6 million. It should have happened by now, right? @AlanDoe any news??


Must have by now




monzo-dot-com currently says not yet

Ah well, it can’t be then. Definitely not


Monzo should have a counter on their front page. That would be cool.


I think the problem here is on the quantum level, Monzo are clearly worried about the observer effect.

“When under observation, customers are being ‘forced’ to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the apparent behaviour of the customers”

It’s clear, the issue is that by seeing the exact number of customers we are forcing those customers to behave in a certain way, to go down a specific path, whereas if we have a broad unobserved number like 5 million then customers can do whatever the hell they want.

Now that’s true financial freedom.

Quantum transparency. If only I’d known.

1 Like

@AlanDoe is the “more than 5 million” a live figure? Will it tick over to “more than 6 million” automatically?

Looking at the source code it’s just a static text element now.

Will need updating manually.

The API being taken offline was the biggest tell to me that it’ll just be manual from now on and when they’re ready to share/update.

It’s possible we may not find out when they hit 6 million at all.


Also it may be with the comments about different types of customers meaning that they don’t think the number is accurate. It may be the number has reduced using the new methodology so we are not comparing apples with apples with our expectations.

1 Like

No disrespect to Alan (who’s just the messenger here) but i don’t really understand the current website copy given his justification. If it about clarity, then the “more than 5 million” figure still has all the perceived problems over definition - it’s just not live.

It’s totally down to Monzo to publish or not publish, but I’d advise them to own it and be honest about why they’re doing it.


It’s why I think the messaging being portrayed to us is rather deceitful, if not an outright lie. I don’t think there’s any honesty to the proclaimed intention.

It’s clear they wanted to hide the exact figure, but I think they lied to us here about why they’re hiding it. I guess it looks better to spin it in a good way than to tell us they’re deciding to act in contradiction to their core values as a company. It’s the same sort of bad faith interaction I recall from their handling of the black culture icon poll. This to me suggests the problem lies with leadership at the community management level because someone there thinks it’s acceptable to take us for fools. I think it’s that that’s irked us more than the actual reigning in of transparency.