I'm happy with the latest update and I'm impressed with Bunq's iteration speed. I like the fact that light mode is back and my photo's for the accounts background give me the same feeling I had with v2. I tried all the user journeys that matter for me and they all work so I am content.
I only ask that you keep reflecting about how realistic some stats are and if they convey the right feeling to your customers. 'Money saved' does not feel right for me. On the one hand you aggregate the actual savings (money that I earn/keep in my pocket such as zeroFX, instant SEPA payments and Massinterest) and on the other hand you combine it with the savings goal money (rounding up transactions and moving it to a savings account).
I believe they are two fundamentally different things: money saved should reflect how much your product allowed me to keep in my pocket/add to my pocket and not how much additional money the product caused me to reshuffle to a different account. By aggregating those two categories, it feels like you are artificially boosting how useful you are for me and you don't need that. I would compare the actual savings and earnings with the cost of a yearly subscription and then you show me the real value. In my case that is close to 240 EUR already and it shows bunq has basically paid for itself for the last three years. Real stats are the most powerful thing you can offer and I think you went overboard with the current implementation.
Time saved really feels like it aggregates arbitrary things and it does not resonate with me at all. Most of the current metrics mean nothing to me. An example: opening accounts saved me 5 days apparently. The accounts are just a means for me to budget (moneyou has one IBAN but an unlimited amount of 'jars' and if bunq was not here I would go for moneyou and there would be no timesaving) so this metric feels like a marketing stretch.
I do not lie awake about if I saved 5 days by not having to go to physical branches of a bank or I saved some hours by scanning invoices. What I sometimes lie awake about is that people pay me regularly and a lot of transactions can take up to 24 hours, but some take 15 seconds. I want to know how much sooner I got my money compared to the average on the slow system. So what I actually worry about is the availability and liquidity of my money and I want to urge you to center your efforts in the area of 'time saving' around that. I believe you have a unique advantage here because you are connected to the ECB instant payments system and it would be really good if you connected to the Dutch alternative pushed by the big banks in NL just so you can offer your customers 10-second instant payments. I believe you should swallow your pride here, even though I agree from an architectural point of view the Dutch system is a ridiculous anomaly. I am sure the same thing will be happening in other European markets and if you also connect to the local alternative for instant payments, it will mean you don't perform worse than your main competitors.
Anyways, zooming out again: I still believe Bunq made the right move with this redesign and urge Bunq to stay on this course and to keep iterating. Most functionality is working again and the highly engaged users who are complaining are few in numbers and you cannot upsell them more anyway. This change in direction will ensure the lower tier users convert better and it is in my interest that Bunq has a healthy base of customers, so it can keep investing in new features. It's not cheap to hire a bunch of good techies.
