A few observations which might also be false. We can have arbitrarily nested monads: monadicObj.bind((T value) => monad.wrap(monad.wrap(value))); Remember,

A few observations which might also be false. We can have arbitrarily nested monads: monadicObj.bind((T value) => monad.wrap(monad.wrap(value))); Remember, `bind` only unwraps one layer. Without it unwrapping one layer, programs would continue accumulating large stacks of monads in monads. I would also point out that it only collapses abstractions of the same kind; Maybe's bind only unwraps one layer of Maybe's. If you have a Promise<Maybe<Foo>> where Foo contains potentially more monads as instance-variables, those don't all get collapsed. I like the 'converting nesting to concatenating' observation. Sometimes we do need parentheses though, because most languages are not associative 5 - 2 - 1 is not the same as 5 - (2 - 1). Basically minus does not form a monoid, so the parens matter.