Changing a system architecture twice like this, specially to go back to what it was before is a large cost to a company. In this line of thinking, they may have to move back to a microservice if they had a bigger team for the exact same application! This is fine by me, but rather than what other benefits they enjoyed by migrating the second time, a clear analysis of motivations behind moving to microservice and then back to monolith without compromising the benefits attained by doing the first migration would be a lot more enlightening. Because I don't imagine the first migration to microservices happened just because they had too big a team. I suppose this thread will naturally attract people who hate microservices in principle.

Logic:

Because of microservices, we had bugs (okay, what kind of bugs?). Therefore we moved back to a monolith again (why did they use a microservice architecture in the first place). Then the bugs disappeared (how?) and we got a whole bunch of other benefits as a bonus (any trade offs?).

Cool, so the initial migration to microservices must have been done by complete idiots then. It seems that even to question that is too much here.