The argument is:

Traditional banks need £6.7m just for toilet paper, but Monzo can (and has) built an entire banking infrastructure complete with regulatory approval for that amount.

This suggests a velocity and efficiency of the upstart that could result in significantly surpassing traditional banks in the service offered, and continuing to advance at a rate at which the banks will never catch up.

[I'm a Monzo customer and like the service, if nothing else because every transaction is tagged with your GPS location from your phone which makes identifying mystery payments much easier. I think it's a force for good in the banking industry, but inevitably the big players will respond to the threat, and that's ok by me]

Because they are using "the latest technology such as AWS, Docker, Kubernetes and cloud native architecture"

/s

Because of what they are achieving on a tiny net loss vs their peers.

> With that investment they're building and marketing a disruptive financial services brand. They're creating all of the technology to support a credit card and current account both in the back end systems and front end mobile apps. They are meeting all of the legal and regulatory requirements. They're providing pretty good customer service and assuming all of the infrastructure costs associated with growing and running a company etc.

In other words, they've built a bank with that 6.7m (+ 1.4m the year before) & they're about to launch current accounts, while the legacy banks struggled to add Touch ID protection to their mobile apps in the same time period. You don't think that's significant?

Not even sure if I would call it an article.

don't know either :/

Agree, garbage article.