I study innovation management at uni, and basically that describes almost all crowdsourcing communities of the ideation type - which this community is basically an example of. It is also a way to offload support strains, but I presume that Revolut is in direct contact with the lead users in this community, and through the beta programmes.
I am quite certain that Revolut staff reads just about everything in this forum - but they should rethink their level of involvement. It is a well-known issue to have too much involvement - it is often safer to let the users voice their concerns and discuss - but too little involvement leads to yet another well-known phenomenon: stagnation.
Staff involvement is a very fine balance, but Revolut ought to do more about it and communicate more clearly. These are the usual points to be aware of in ideation communities:
(1) Purpose of community
(3) How binding the type of forum - consultative or contractual - a hybrid?
(4) Feedback mechanism - e.g. the excessive post “How to improve Metal?”. Nothing happens, and there is no feedback, just the same (few) users posting and reposting that other users’ requests are excessive from a cost or regulatory standpoint.
(6) Active moderation - and how much?
(7) Award structure - I mean, we get badges… perhaps something real?
There’s tonnes of literature around idea management, netnography, and lead user identification. Esp. see von Hippel, Brem, Bakke, etc. I call on Revolut to improve and rethink the forum form.