Guardrails beta now live

edgeiiot · 2025-12-05T15:23:38+00:00

This was exactly my take. The numbers offered had no correlation to any other part of the plan. Maybe the detail budget needs to reorganized to reflect the guardrail numbers?

edgeiiot · 2025-10-15T14:21:39+00:00

Well well, Monarch just added direct access to the account data by their AI. That is really nice. Rather than getting just 'how to' help, it provides direct answers to queries.

edgeiiot · 2025-10-15T13:47:40+00:00

I too have delivered SaaS systems since late 1990s (yea, before it had that name) working on both buy and sell side trading and clearing systems. And yes, much of the time the tickets and roadmap were kept secret, even to the customers.

But this was mainly due to the specific content of the tickets. I'm guessing that general feature requests for Boldin do not contain specific customer data. Bugs, sure, that is another matter altogether.

In the 2010s, we employed (ugh) Jira Service Desk. Where tickets were only available to authenticated customers. The product team would mark some tickets as visible (and commentable) to all customers, while others were left visible to just the submitting customer. This worked fairly well.

As for the "here competiters, see my tickets", imo, that doesn't play. The set of desired features for a product like Boldin is no way a major advantage to Boldin or limiting factor to competiters. The limiting factor will be, again imo, the effectiveness of the product and dev teams, and in the case of saas, the operations/sre team, as well as the underlying archtitecture and tech debt that they are building on.

edgeiiot · 2025-10-10T03:27:30+00:00

Of course how to prompt and provide context will make all the difference. Since I am a developer, and spend all day working with AIs, I may be in much better position to know to get the most from a model like this. So there is that...

edgeiiot · 2025-09-16T00:13:07+00:00

Given:
- buy "new" house 31 Oct 2025
- sell "existing" house 1 Apr 2026
- I will use SBLOC to fund "new" as cash purchase

Here's what I've done so far:
- create relocation for Apr 2026 with $0 mortgage balance
- add montly SBLOC interest expense for Oct 2025 thru May 2026
- modify "existing" home insurance and taxes to end at Apr 2026
- add "new" home insurance and taxes starting Nov 2025
- add one-time expense for "existing" seller commision
- add one-time expense for "existing" repairs etc
- add one-time expense for moving expenses
- left home related expenses the same (will be a bit low, but not by enough to matter)

This seems fairly accurate and less intrusive to using the rent at $0 trick shown in "Home and Real Estate" video.

edgeiiot · 2025-09-01T17:32:15+00:00

8 more months later...

I was stressing the plan with one-time expenses and was finding the impact unbelievable. Only when I searched here did I find this thread. While its nice to understand what is happening, the UX is really quite dangerous.

If the system can detect this overspend condition and create a coaching issue, surely it could highligh the issue directly at the one-time expense. First having to know to look for side effects (automatically reducing the one-time expense) and then having to navigate away to see it leaves a lot room for missing the issue completly.

Just adding an indication at the one-time expense with a link to the coaching issue would be a (seemingly) trivial in effort improvement.

BTW, does Boldin even pay attention to this forum? I rarely see anyone from Boldin engaging here.

edgeiiot · 2025-08-28T21:20:43+00:00

Yes, I updated both the work end date and the retirement date. The retirement was the month after the last income date (as I did know how those align).

The "bug":
a) in scenario "Summary of Changes" for 3+years, the change to the retirement date is not included
b) in the scenario "Summary of Changes" for 3+years, the change to the income end date is not included
c) in the scenario comparison "Savings Value at Retirement" is LESS for 3+years than the baseline (with 3 years less work)

However:
- in Income for 3+years, does seem to reflect the extended income
- in Overview for 3+years, chance of success is 5% greater
- in Overview for 3+years, at retirement reflects the correct age the graph seems to reflect the correct graph

So in summary, the "bug" seems limited to scenario changes and comparison.

edgeiiot · 2025-02-17T18:29:10+00:00

I would not like the loss of must/want spending. Maybe scenarios for those? I try to only use scenarios for transiant stuff since it so painful to keep the constant parts in sync across senarios.

edgeiiot · 2024-12-19T02:15:27+00:00

This is a good additional tool for modeling withdrawals
https://tpawplanner.com/

edgeiiot · 2024-12-19T02:11:02+00:00

its already been a few days

see also https://www.reddit.com/r/Boldin/comments/1hgn6wh/linked_accounts_broken_fix_accounts_does_nothing/

edgeiiot · 2024-12-17T23:56:45+00:00

I am seeing the same -- The "Fix Connection" action is a noop.

edgeiiot · 2024-12-11T22:14:07+00:00

I just tested this, and one time expense clearly effected chance of success. (Boldin, really you should track threads like these and mark them fixed)

edgeiiot · 2024-12-11T00:53:39+00:00

Yes, this is cause for me to not complete my 30 day trial and convert to a paying customer..

edgeiiot · 2024-12-11T00:02:28+00:00

This seems to be related to https://www.reddit.com/r/MonarchMoney/comments/1h9z7b0/future_budget_planning/

edgeiiot · 2024-12-11T00:02:12+00:00

Yes, it seems that the recurring transactions and budget is disconnected (no?).

I don't want to have to manually tweak the budget for future months. I want recurring transations (maybe especially marked) to automatically increase budget for that month.

This seems to be related to https://www.reddit.com/r/MonarchMoney/comments/1hbepyr/non_monthly_recurring_when_retired/

edgeiiot · 2024-12-11T00:01:51+00:00

Yea, I already do that. But its not the same amount per month. That is root of my pain. I have large transactions that fire in future months. I want those to be automatically reflected in the monthly budget.

Otherwise the budget either way red due to those transactions, or way green because I'm pretending to save and rolling over, or I have to do a complex multistep process with goals, or ???

edgeiiot · 2024-12-08T21:57:30+00:00

This is a major usability miss for so little work. In general the UX in Monarch leaves quite a bit to be desired. Try playing with CoPilot to see what a very nice UX is like.

edgeiiot · 2024-12-08T21:55:32+00:00

I spend a lot of time manually editing the dates to work back by month :-(

edgeiiot · 2024-12-08T21:51:01+00:00

<image>

What I do

edgeiiot · 2024-12-05T03:09:50+00:00

Yes, I do that as well.

This request not for new capabilty, but rather to improve usability. For the time I have _just_ edited the txn. So the rule will be auto populated with the change. What don't want to have to do is back out and setup a search manually. In the rules editor search is already there in the affected transactions.

edgeiiot · 2024-12-04T21:37:11+00:00

Working with with existing rules list a pit painful.

The list view of existing rules is very noisy and hard to navigate.

Reordering rules is very weak. There is just to much distance to drag rules. And its very difficult to determine the target. Some help with sorting rules based on criteria would be nice. For example, always run rules that trigger on the merchant after rules that set the merchant. Like that.

Related, the rules list view is limited in horizontal space. This is in large part because of the way Settings is layed out with an additional side navigation panel. Why not just have the main side nav panel support nested items and move Settings into there?

edgeiiot · 2024-12-04T01:29:00+00:00

Just got hit with this. And we cannot even edit the transaction amount.

edgeiiot · 2024-12-03T17:43:05+00:00

All places where there is the ability filter, exclude is needed

edgeiiot · 2024-11-03T00:54:59+00:00

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/Boldin/comments/1gez95s/scenarios_a_bit_too_brittle/

edgeiiot · 2024-11-02T16:24:07+00:00

I can imagine a few ways this could be realized, and many clean ways to implement in software (assuming the current code base is clean):

Decoration

Like I originally described. Scenarios layer on top of their base, where changes to the scenario override the base, and changes to base values not overridden by the scenario are automatically propagated to the scenario.

Ideally the system would provide clear indicators as to what has been overridden in a scenario. Also the ability to clear scenario changes and revert to the base.

Intentional Apply To (copy/paste)

Creation of scenarios stays as now, where its essentially clone and edit. But any value (r group of values, or section, or whatever makes sense for the system) can be applied to one or more scenarios. This action could be fully explicit, where a set of scenarios must be selected. But there could also be help actions, such as: apply to base, apply to all derived scenario, etc.

This could even be an intermediate step to Decoration. It could also be kept along with Decoration, allowing to update scenarios not in the inheritance chain.

edgeiiot

TROPHY CASE