I would also add that EVEN IF you accept the logic that Pack members can’t receive as much interest as regular Premium members, because they are paying less in membership fees, the current state of affairs is still disproportionately punishing Packs:

Regular Premium pays 12 x 7.99 = €95.88 and receives a maximum of €27 interest, representing 28% of their paid fees.

Pack as a whole pays 12 x 19.99 = €239.88 and receives the same €27 interest (split over 4 members with €2500 balance each), only 11% of the paid fees.

It would at least make some sense if Pack was allowed to receive interest over €25000 as a whole, so €6250 per member, since they are paying 2.5 times the fees of a regular member.

This really bugs me out! I really don’t understand why they do this. Please elaborate.

Yes. That also made me wonder. Thanks for the blog item. And I do agree. Let members of a pack have the same interest rate as non-members.

Even more so, a pack owner doesn’t get to choose how to distribute the cap amongst the pack members. If this would be added as a feature then at least you have some control over how to optimize the interest - now you don’t so all the limits (lowest balance per day - even when transferring money from one pack member to another within the same pack, cap distributed evenly and cap not proportional to the fee you pay) work towards bunq paying out the lowest interest possible.


It makes you wonder if bunq didn’t already have the whole interest-scheme planned when they introduced pack as the combination of Massinterest and pack kind of negates itself in comparison to a normal premium account if you store more than €10,000 on it....


But it is what it is. At least it’s clear how things work so everyone can make a conscious choice.


I will type up a feature request somewhere else (in regards to governing the cap distribution).

@JohnDo#72126 What I find odd that even there statement of consistency between subscriptions is not true. Not all subscriptions have the same interest cap. Free users don't get interest at all, in other words their cap is 0. How's that consistent?

And then of course you get to the point that the price of the subscription is not consistent either. Each type of subscription has it's own price. So obviously consistency is not what bunq is after. Mind you, I get it that there are different subscriptions. No problem. But when you do, don't tell you are after consistency amongst the subscriptions.

@JeroenE#72180 To be fair, I don't think they meant to include "Free" users in this statement. The days when "bunq Free" was an official thing are over, it is not a type of membership they even promote or talk about anymore. The three memberships listed on the website are Pack, Business and Premium. So in that sense the statement is consistent, they offer the same interest-eligible amount of €10k on each of these. The only question is, does that make sense for Pack, when in every other sense it consists of up to four fully independent memberships.

@vampjon#72188 I don't agree. You can still get bunq Free. It's still in the pricelist. I know it's not listed on the main page, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The 500 ATM withdrawal limit is not on the main page either and it does exist too.

So if they say subscriptions it should include Free too. And if they didn't mean that then I think my point that they don't have a clue what they are talking about stands.

@JeroenE#72198 "bunq MassInterest applies to the first €10.000 for Business and Premium users."
https://together.bunq.com/d/8298-what-is-massinterest-and-how-do-i-use-it-to-save/2

In other words, the whole interest feature only applies to paid memberships. You can call that inconsistent, but it isn't that surprising as the same applies to pretty much all new features since the introduction of Premium memberships.

@vampjon#72201 “applies to the first €10.000 for Business and Premium users” unless you are in a pack, then it’s only the first €2500 for you, although we don’t mention that here, but it’s vert logical.

To bad they forgot to add the last part. That would have shown that from a Premium user in a pack perspective (not the pack owner) it doesn’t make any sense except for “bunq found a wat to not pay the full interest”.

I don’t think that was the reasoning though, but like they said, consistency was. But this is consistency from a technical perspective, not a user perspective. We know bunq is an IT company with a banking license, but technically correct isn’t always the best correct 😉

I hope they reconsider, because this is causing unnesesarry questions and doubt on what bunq tried to do here.

Still a very happy bunqer though ❤️

@vampjon#72230 Agreed. I was just using your quote and making a side note. Free not being part of receiving interest doesn’t sound strange to me.

What will happen if I was a Pack owner without sharing the Pack with others? Will I get the full interests then?

@vampjon#72201 Like others already pointed out that post doesn't mention Pack either.

I think that bunq should be more explicit when they talk about these things and we aren't supposed to guess what they actually mean.

Besides, if you're in a Pack you are technically still a Premium subscriber. You will still get an invoice which states that. Of course you also get the same amount returned because you're in a Pack so the total to be paid is zero. Only if you make more personal choices you might need to pay again. Like ordering more cards, getting a SWIFT transfer and so on.
This also makes the interest rule very strange. All the costs are not split so why should the interest cap be split?

@Heiko-Hartwig#72242 Yes, the cap is divided by the number of users in the Pack. Of course, it makes no sense to have a Pack for yourself but if you did you would get interest over 10000 / 1 = 10000 euro.

@JeroenE#72247 Indeed, the obscure handling of Pack memberships with regard to MassInterest is exactly the point that John raised with this topic and I agree entirely.

@Heiko-Hartwig#72253 If you want to donate bunq money won't it be easier to do just that? 💸