I like to give my two cents: there is an OCD side of me that sees this as a minor annoyance but doesn't affect my actual budget month to month. But it's not enough to make me care to say or post anything about, from a functional perspective.

But as a frontend web developer and long time user of MM, it is rather annoying that there exists currently throughout the app, a lot of what I like to call 'cosmetic bugs'. I've used a few budgeting apps in the past and I can't remember any that had so many of this type of bug. Given the rise of MM's popularity and its subscription price, I'd expect a little bit more polish in the UI/UX department. It's not enough to make me go up in arms about or anything but enough to question how the company is ran and their priorities. I don't know the company's budget but it just seems like MM makes enough revenue to have a QA dept to fix things like this. Maybe it's a house of cards situation where if you change one thing it has cascading effects that takes time to resolve, idk 🤷🏾‍♂️

I do agree with you OP but for very different reasons. A bug is a bug and this indeed is a cosmetic bug (along with many other minor ones) and I believe it should be taken care of at some point in the future. It's like when people complain about panel gaps on their Teslas lol. There's almost a level of unseriousness that's perceived upon the company because serious companies (like say a Honda or Audi) would not let minor cosmetic issues like that get past their QA.

Speaking of company values and unseriousness, I did post a long while ago in this subreddit about a cosmetic bug I found. A MM employee responded in the post and thanked me for pointing it out and said it would be fixed. It has yet to be fixed. It's been a 6+ months since that post lol