I agree with that in general, but it feels like a single point of failure. 10 different servers that all have an X% chance of being hacked are much more secure to me than 1 server that even has X/10% chance of being hacked.
That said, I like the idea of mint in general. It's depressing that banks can't (won't) figure out read-only credentials for use cases like this.
ING Direct implemented read-only credentials for Mint, after fighting with them about access for months. (ING kept blocking Mint, and then Mint would find a way around it.)
That said, I like the idea of mint in general. It's depressing that banks can't (won't) figure out read-only credentials for use cases like this.