Waarom worden er later opeens allerlei randvoorwaarden toegevoegd?
Essentiële voorwaarden kunnen niet verstopt worden in kleine lettertjes.

Rente krijg je per IBAN en niet per gebruiker. bunq zou de eerste bank worden die op een en/of IBAN 2x rente gaat vergoeden. Ik ben voor trouwens!

Omgekeerd, deelname aan een pack kan de rente niet halveren (of nog minder).

Ali heeft tijdens update #10 ook helemaal niks vermeld over afwijkende voorwaarden en de app is kraakhelder over een pack-abonnement. Een pack wordt zelfs een upgrade genoemd en kan dus simpelweg niet minder zijn dan een Premium abonnement.

https://www.bunq.com/nl/pricing/pack

Een Premium gebruiker kan op elk moment upgraden naar bunq Pack. Hij/zij wordt dan de “Pack eigenaar” en zal vanaf dat moment €19,99/maand worden gefactureerd.

Met bunq Pack krijgt iedereen toegang tot een volledig Premium (of Zakelijk) lidmaatschap.

@JohnDo#72126 Ik heb voor mijn bedrijf een bunq pack.

Bestaande uit:
1x Bedrijf (business)
2x administatief medewerker. (premium)

Volgens mij stallen de administratief medewerkers geen geld in hun account.

Tot welk bedrag krijgt de business account dan rente?

@PWA-B-V-Yellow-Falcon#72639 The way I read the terms, the €10k limit is split between the number of members in the Pack, in your case three, so each would collect interest on €3333.33 (and it will not matter that the 2 others have no money in their accounts).

@JohnDo#72501 Playing devil's advocate for a moment here, I will just point out that with all the controversy over how Pack members are being terribly victimised by these limits, being a Pack member is still cheaper even taking these limits into account. Yes, you miss out on €20.25 of interest yearly (receiving only max. €6.75 instead of €27), but you still pay €35.88 less in fees per year than a normal Premium member (€60 instead of €95.88). So the difference has gotten smaller, but Packers still come out ahead.

Not to take away from the points you are rightly making, but just clarifying this point in case people would get the opposite impression.

@vampjon#72651 Can you imagine if Netflix or Spotify would only give people with a Family subscription only access to half their content and then say "well, it's still better than no access at all"?

If you're in a Pack you were a normal Premium customer, but for interest you're suddenly treated like a fourth class citizen. I find it odd that people think this should be OK at all.

@JeroenE#72669 I’m just saying that whatever bunq’s reasoning behind this is, it surely must have something to do with the fact that a Pack member is bringing in less in fees. At the end of the day, the choice used to be between paying €7.99 for Premium, or €5.00 in a Pack. Now, with maximum interest, the net monthly fees can be seen as €5.74 for Premium or €4.44 in a Pack. You don’t lose access to any features at all apart from this, so the “half the content” comparison is going too far, I think. Again, I’m not defending the setup, I find it a bit obscure too, but from a certain perspective it seems a bit petty to complain that your discount compared to a normal member has become less than €3, while you are still getting a discount.

@vampjon#72677 I don't know what the reason is. Of course half their content was a big hyperbole. Perhaps I should've said that Netflix would bring out a new season of your favourite series but you can't watch the new season finale because your a Fmaily subscriber.

If what you're saying is true they are not keeping their promise that they would never use our money to generate money for themselves.

Or they are using the subscription money to give you interest which in my mind is wierd. Is the next step going to be a subscription where you pay 16 euro per month but you'll get twice the interest?!? Doing this is almost giving your customers a Dutch treat.

Of course I don't understand their interest model including the cap at all. If you have 10 members with 10K you have 100K and you give them all 27 euro (so 270 euro in total). However if 1 member has 100K on his account you still got 100K but you only give him 27 and not 270. So for some reason the 100K of 10 is not the same as the 100K of 1.

Perhaps you're right and they are using the fees to give you interest. But if that's true why does it matter at all what my balance is? I would think that someone who has only 1k on his accounts would appreciate 27 euro more than someone who has 10k on his accounts. Yet you gve the first one only 2,70 euro and not 27 yet they have paid you the same fees.

And why would you create susch a convoluted way with lots of objections from people who don't want interest at all in the first place? If the point is to make the fees lower I think a more sensible approach would be to lower the fees. I know, that probably sounds like a crazy idea :/

The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

@JohnDo#73272 Now let’s hope the update their policy rather than the T&Cs 😉

@smyles#73273 agreed. they implemented the no interest toggle within 2,5 weeks, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt ánd another 2,5 weeks to make it so that pack users do get 0,27% interest on their balances up to € 10'000 each. (so 40'000 in total)

@DaveFlash#74077 Just like all other Premium members who get interest up to €10.000. And just like 10 Premium members get a limit of €100.000. Mentioning a limit of €40.000 for a pack should be avoided in my opinion, because the limit should be user based, not subscription based. That's the case for all other features and limits of Premium. Let me clarify.

Subscription limits vs User limits

Perhaps bunq sees "being in pack" differently than many users. Users might think, "let's get Premium!" and later think "Let's join a pack so I pay a little less but keep my exact same premium account with the exact same features and limitations. Nothing changed!".

Bunq on the other hand sees it from the pack owner perspective who get's a pack and then invites others who share the €10.000 limit. It's the only limit they share. They don't share number of IBANs, cards or anything else, just the interest limit. Because the limit applies to a subscription while all other limits and features apply as if everyone is a full Premium member. So the limit is consistent from a (paying) subscription perspective.

The question remains. Why only apply this limit on paying subscription level, while all other limits are on user level. That is inconsistent. It feels like an escape hatch or oversight. Or bunq seeing it as a Pack User where the user might see it as a Premium user in a pack. See the different approach?

"But a pack is still cheaper"

A pack still being cheaper in the end should not be a reason to keep this confusion and people having to calculate if it's profitable to go get a pack or not... And for just 2 or 3 people in a pack it might not even be true. And if you want to check if that's true, you have to start calculating again. Sigh...

Keep it simple.

But bunq will need to pay more interest

If bunq starts paying Premium users in a pack the correct interest they will need to get the money from somewhere. Maybe all interest from users who disable getting interest (from a moral/religious/tax/simplicity perspective) could compensate (partly) the extra cost for bunq. Just a thought.

I hope I didn't repeat others or myself to much, but wanted to share the possible reasoning (and inconsistency in that reasoning) from bunq side. Cheers.

@JohnDo#79190 I also received my first interest, and a quick calculation shows it is indeed capped at € 2’500.

I am a member of a pack / premium.

Although it is rounded up.
0,0075 euros bonus. Scooooore!! 🤑🤑🤑

@JohnDo#79220 support heeft dus geen goede reden voor het verschil 🙁