Designing Trust into High-Stakes Financial Flows
Designing Trust into High-Stakes Financial Flows
Designing Trust into High-Stakes Financial Flows
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
LABEL
Designing trust into irreversible decisions: A High-Stakes Fundraising Protocol
Designing trust into irreversible decisions: A High-Stakes Fundraising Protocol
Designed a fundraising protocol end to end, from founding vision to shipped interfaces trusted by thousands of investors committing capital with no safety net. Built from zero, for a system where one wrong decision can't be undone.
Designed a fundraising protocol end to end, from founding vision to shipped interfaces trusted by thousands of investors committing capital with no safety net. Built from zero, for a system where one wrong decision can't be undone.
$8
m+
$8
m+
Capital deployed through flows I designed
Every dollar committed through interfaces built from scratch. Clarity wasn't a preference, it was a requirement.
$8
m+
$8
m+
Capital deployed through flows I designed
Every dollar committed through interfaces built from scratch — where clarity wasn't a preference, it was a requirement.
180
+
180
+
Screens designed from 0→1
From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.
180
+
180
+
Screens designed from 0→1
From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.
85
%
85
%
Deal Success Rate
85% of all fundraising rounds reached their funding cap and launched successfully, a direct signal of investor trust in the system.
4.8
k+
4.8
k+
Users Onboarded
Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.
85
%
85
%
Deal Success Rate
85% of all fundraising rounds reached their funding cap and launched successfully — a direct signal of investor trust in the system.
4.8
k+
4.8
k+
Users Onboarded
Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.
85
%
85
%
Deal Success Rate
85% of all fundraising rounds reached their funding cap and launched successfully, a direct signal of investor trust in the system.
4.8
k+
4.8
k+
Users Onboarded
Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.
$8
m+
$8
m+
Capital deployed through flows I designed
Every dollar committed through interfaces built from scratch. Clarity wasn't a preference, it was a requirement.
180
180
Screens designed from 0→1
From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.
LABEL
High-stakes capital decisions require more than good UI. They require trust at the architecture level.
High-stakes capital decisions require more than good UI. They require trust at the architecture level.
High-stakes capital decisions require more than good UI. They require trust at the architecture level.
The investors committing the most capital are the ones who can least afford opacity in the system they're trusting.
The investors committing the most capital are the ones who can least afford opacity in the system they're trusting.
The Problem
Every fundraising platform has the same hidden failure mode: the moment a user commits capital and loses visibility into what happens next. Terms change after commitment. Funds move without clear attribution. The process requires multiple disconnected transactions with no single source of truth. For serious investors and protocol founders, this isn't a UX problem. It's a deal-breaker. Capital doesn't move where trust doesn't exist.
The Design Challenge
The protocol's technical guarantees: on-chain transparency, smart contract enforcement, and immutable deal terms were architecturally sound. The challenge: making a system this opaque feel completely legible to a user who just wants to know where their money is going and whether the deal is safe. That's the design problem I was brought in to solve from day one.
The Design Challenge
The protocol's technical guarantees: on-chain transparency, smart contract enforcement, and immutable deal terms were architecturally sound. The challenge: making a system this opaque feel completely legible to a user who just wants to know where their money is going and whether the deal is safe. That's the design problem I was brought in to solve from day one.
LABEL
Led the design of a high-stakes fundraising protocol. From founding vision to shipped product trusted with millions.
Led the design of a high-stakes fundraising protocol. From founding vision to shipped product trusted with millions.
Founding designer. Every screen, every flow, every trust decision. From research to mainnet.
Founding designer. Every screen, every flow, every trust decision. From research to mainnet.
01
01
Designing for irreversibility
Defined the entire UX architecture of a fundraising protocol where every investor action, committing funds, confirming deal terms, accepting vesting schedules, was permanent and on-chain. Designed every flow around one constraint: the user must be certain before they proceed.
Reduced the cognitive load of irreversible commitment by surfacing the right information at exactly the right moment: deal terms, fund allocation, risk factors, before the point of no return, not after.
01
01
Designing for irreversibility
Defined the entire UX architecture of a fundraising protocol where every investor action, committing funds, confirming deal terms, accepting vesting schedules, was permanent and on-chain. Designed every flow around one constraint: the user must be certain before they proceed.
Reduced the cognitive load of irreversible commitment by surfacing the right information at exactly the right moment: deal terms, fund allocation, risk factors, before the point of no return, not after.
01
01
Designing for irreversibility
Defined the entire UX architecture of a fundraising protocol where every investor action, committing funds, confirming deal terms, accepting vesting schedules, was permanent and on-chain. Designed every flow around one constraint: the user must be certain before they proceed.
Reduced the cognitive load of irreversible commitment by surfacing the right information at exactly the right moment: deal terms, fund allocation, risk factors, before the point of no return, not after.
02
02
Building trust signals into the structure, not the surface
Pushed back on the instinct to add "trust indicators" as decorative UI elements. Instead, restructured the core information architecture so that transparency was the default state. Deal progress, fund allocation, and sponsor history visible without a user having to look for them.
Users consistently cited deal visibility and transparency as primary reasons for committing. Not the brand, not the onboarding. The trust was structural.
02
02
Building trust signals into the structure, not the surface
Pushed back on the instinct to add "trust indicators" as decorative UI elements. Instead, restructured the core information architecture so that transparency was the default state. Deal progress, fund allocation, and sponsor history visible without a user having to look for them.
Users consistently cited deal visibility and transparency as primary reasons for committing. Not the brand, not the onboarding. The trust was structural.
02
02
Building trust signals into the structure, not the surface
Pushed back on the instinct to add "trust indicators" as decorative UI elements. Instead, restructured the core information architecture so that transparency was the default state. Deal progress, fund allocation, and sponsor history visible without a user having to look for them.
Users consistently cited deal visibility and transparency as primary reasons for committing. Not the brand, not the onboarding. The trust was structural.
03
03
Making two fundamentally different users feel at home in the same system
Designed simultaneously for two user archetypes with opposing mental models: the investor committing capital (risk management, clarity, confidence) and the protocol founder raising funds (control, flexibility, deal customization). Built a system that served both without compromising either.
Both user journeys reached their goal. Investors committed capital, founders successfully launched deals, without ever needing to understand the other side's experience.
03
03
Making two fundamentally different users feel at home in the same system
Designed simultaneously for two user archetypes with opposing mental models: the investor committing capital (risk management, clarity, confidence) and the protocol founder raising funds (control, flexibility, deal customization). Built a system that served both without compromising either.
Both user journeys reached their goal. Investors committed capital, founders successfully launched deals, without ever needing to understand the other side's experience.
03
03
Making two fundamentally different users feel at home in the same system
Designed simultaneously for two user archetypes with opposing mental models: the investor committing capital (risk management, clarity, confidence) and the protocol founder raising funds (control, flexibility, deal customization). Built a system that served both without compromising either.
Both user journeys reached their goal. Investors committed capital, founders successfully launched deals, without ever needing to understand the other side's experience.
04
04
Translating on-chain mechanics into human decisions
Decided to abstract smart contract interactions entirely from the primary user flow. Vesting schedules, token allocations, and deal confirmations were surfaced as human-readable decisions, not technical transactions. The blockchain layer operated invisibly.
Eliminated the biggest conversion barrier for non-technical investors. A user could complete a full investment flow without understanding what a smart contract was. The protocol's guarantees were present. The complexity wasn't.
04
04
Translating on-chain mechanics into human decisions
Decided to abstract smart contract interactions entirely from the primary user flow. Vesting schedules, token allocations, and deal confirmations were surfaced as human-readable decisions, not technical transactions. The blockchain layer operated invisibly.
Eliminated the biggest conversion barrier for non-technical investors. A user could complete a full investment flow without understanding what a smart contract was. The protocol's guarantees were present. The complexity wasn't.
04
04
Translating on-chain mechanics into human decisions
Decided to abstract smart contract interactions entirely from the primary user flow. Vesting schedules, token allocations, and deal confirmations were surfaced as human-readable decisions, not technical transactions. The blockchain layer operated invisibly.
Eliminated the biggest conversion barrier for non-technical investors. A user could complete a full investment flow without understanding what a smart contract was. The protocol's guarantees were present. The complexity wasn't.
05
05
Founding designer across 18 months and 5 major product updates
Operated as sole designer through MVP, V1 (Sponsored Pools), V2 (Direct Deals), V3 (VestAMM), and post-launch iterations. Each update introduced new deal mechanics, new user types, and new trust surfaces to design.
Maintained a coherent design language and consistent trust architecture across a product that fundamentally evolved four times in 18 months, without losing the thread.
05
05
Founding designer across 18 months and 5 major product updates
Operated as sole designer through MVP, V1 (Sponsored Pools), V2 (Direct Deals), V3 (VestAMM), and post-launch iterations. Each update introduced new deal mechanics, new user types, and new trust surfaces to design.
Maintained a coherent design language and consistent trust architecture across a product that fundamentally evolved four times in 18 months, without losing the thread.
05
05
Founding designer across 18 months and 5 major product updates
Operated as sole designer through MVP, V1 (Sponsored Pools), V2 (Direct Deals), V3 (VestAMM), and post-launch iterations. Each update introduced new deal mechanics, new user types, and new trust surfaces to design.
Maintained a coherent design language and consistent trust architecture across a product that fundamentally evolved four times in 18 months, without losing the thread.
LABEL
Designing for two users with opposing needs
Designing for two users with opposing needs
Designing familiarity on top of complexity.
Designing familiarity on top of complexity.
The Problem
A fundraising protocol serves two fundamentally different people at the same time: the investor who wants maximum clarity before committing, and the founder who wants maximum flexibility in structuring a deal. Most platforms solve for one and create friction for the other.
The Problem
A fundraising protocol serves two fundamentally different people at the same time: the investor who wants maximum clarity before committing, and the founder who wants maximum flexibility in structuring a deal. Most platforms solve for one and create friction for the other.
The Decision
Instead of a single unified flow, I designed two parallel experiences anchored to the same underlying data: the deal. Investors see deal terms, fund progress, and risk signals. Founders see configuration controls, deal structure, and deployment status. Neither user sees the other's complexity.
The Decision
Instead of a single unified flow, I designed two parallel experiences anchored to the same underlying data: the deal. Investors see deal terms, fund progress, and risk signals. Founders see configuration controls, deal structure, and deployment status. Neither user sees the other's complexity.
Outcome
Both user types completed their primary goal with significantly lower friction than comparable platforms. The "two-sided product" problem dissolved when both sides were designed around their actual decision, not a shared technical interface.
Outcome
Both user types completed their primary goal with significantly lower friction than comparable platforms. The "two-sided product" problem dissolved when both sides were designed around their actual decision, not a shared technical interface.
LABEL
Making irreversible commitment feel safe
Making irreversible commitment feel safe
Replacing a technical choice with a human one.
Replacing a technical choice with a human one.
The Problem
The highest-friction moment in any fundraising flow is the instant before commitment, when a user has to decide whether they trust the deal enough to lock in capital they can't recover. Most platforms underinvest in this moment. The default is a confirmation dialog. That's not enough.
The Problem
The highest-friction moment in any fundraising flow is the instant before commitment, when a user has to decide whether they trust the deal enough to lock in capital they can't recover. Most platforms underinvest in this moment. The default is a confirmation dialog. That's not enough.
The Decision
Redesigned the pre-commitment experience as a trust summary, surfacing deal terms, sponsor history, fund allocation breakdown, and investment window timeline in a single, scannable view before the user takes any action. The "commit" button wasn't reachable until the user had been exposed to every material fact.
The Decision
Redesigned the pre-commitment experience as a trust summary, surfacing deal terms, sponsor history, fund allocation breakdown, and investment window timeline in a single, scannable view before the user takes any action. The "commit" button wasn't reachable until the user had been exposed to every material fact.
Outcome
72% of users who reached the commitment screen completed the investment. The information wasn't friction, it was confidence. Users who understood the deal committed. The drop-off happened earlier, at the deal discovery stage, where it belonged.
Outcome
72% of users who reached the commitment screen completed the investment. The information wasn't friction, it was confidence. Users who understood the deal committed. The drop-off happened earlier, at the deal discovery stage, where it belonged.
LABEL
Turning on-chain data into portfolio clarity
Turning on-chain data into portfolio clarity
Turning cryptographic proof into human trust.
Turning cryptographic proof into human trust.
The Problem
After committing capital, investors had no reliable way to track what was happening. Vesting schedules were enforced on-chain but invisible in the UI. Fund status required checking a block explorer. The post-commitment experience was a black box.
The Problem
After committing capital, investors had no reliable way to track what was happening. Vesting schedules were enforced on-chain but invisible in the UI. Fund status required checking a block explorer. The post-commitment experience was a black box.
The Decision
Designed a portfolio dashboard that translated on-chain state into a real-time, human-readable view of every active deal. Vesting progress, claimable tokens, fund status, and deal milestones surfaced as a timeline, not a transaction log.
The Decision
Designed a portfolio dashboard that translated on-chain state into a real-time, human-readable view of every active deal. Vesting progress, claimable tokens, fund status, and deal milestones surfaced as a timeline, not a transaction log.
Outcome
Repeat investor rate reached 62%, the strongest signal that the post-commitment experience built the trust needed for users to come back. The portfolio layer turned a one-time commitment into an ongoing relationship with the protocol.
Outcome
Repeat investor rate reached 62%, the strongest signal that the post-commitment experience built the trust needed for users to come back. The portfolio layer turned a one-time commitment into an ongoing relationship with the protocol.
LABEL
18 months. Five major product versions.
One design principle throughout.
18 months. Five major product versions. One design principle throughout.
18 months. Five major product versions. One design principle throughout.
Every update introduced new mechanics: new deal structures, new user types, new trust surfaces to design. The product changed four times. The design language didn't.
Every update introduced new mechanics: new deal structures, new user types, new trust surfaces to design. The product changed four times. The design language didn't.
LABEL
Build the Vision (Jan 2022)
Mapped the fundraising landscape.
Benchmarked centralized platforms and existing protocols.
Defined the product's core positioning: trust-first, transparency by default.
Established the product architecture and information hierarchy before a single screen existed.
LABEL
Understand & Validate (Feb–Apr 2022)
12 user research interviews with active investors and protocol founders.
Mapped two user journeys from discovery to post-deal.
Four core insights shaped every subsequent design decision: one-step commitment, upfront deal clarity, real-time tracking, and visible trust signals.
LABEL
Shape the Experience: MVP (Apr–Jun 2022)
First full product shipped.
Core investor flow: deal discovery → commitment → portfolio tracking.
Design system established.
Brand identity created from scratch. Teal/green palette chosen to signal trust and financial precision without defaulting to the aggression of red or the genericness of blue.
LABEL
V1→V3: Sponsored Pools, Direct Deals, VestAMM (Jun 2022–Jun 2023)
Three major product expansions, each introducing new deal mechanics and new user needs.
Direct Deals removed the intermediary layer entirely.
VestAMM added liquidity mechanics.
Each version required rethinking the trust architecture without breaking the mental model users had already built.
LABEL
Launch, Learn & Evolve (Jun–Dec 2023)
Post-launch iteration driven by real behavioral data.
8% drop-off rate at deal terms → redesigned deal summary.
Wallet connectivity friction → simplified connection flow.
Dashboard readability → rebuilt portfolio view.
Every iteration closed a specific trust gap.
LABEL
AI wasn't available the way it is now. But the discipline was already there.
AI wasn't available the way it is now. But the discipline was already there.
Aelin was designed in 2022–2024, before AI tools became embedded in design workflows. What I built then shaped exactly how I use them now.
Aelin was designed in 2022–2024, before AI tools became embedded in design workflows. What I built then shaped exactly how I use them now.
Research without shortcuts
Mapping the fundraising landscape in 2022 meant manual benchmarking: 20+ platforms, two-sided competitive analysis, no AI to cluster patterns. I built the research framework by hand: centralized vs. decentralized, strengths vs. weaknesses, UX patterns vs. trust failures. That discipline, structured thinking before any screen, is now what I use AI to accelerate. The methodology didn't change. The speed did.
User research as design foundation
50+ structured interviews, each running between 45 minutes and 90 minutes. Every insight mapped back to a design decision. The connection between "users forget to complete the second transaction" and "one-step commitment flow" wasn't obvious. It required synthesis, not just note-taking. That synthesis process is now where I use Claude most. Pattern recognition from qualitative data that would have taken a week now takes hours.
Design system as force multiplier
Building 120+ components as a solo designer across 5 major product versions required a system tight enough that every new decision felt obvious. I built it manually in 2022. Now, I use AI to generate variants, document decisions, and feed consistency guidelines back into prototyping tools. The principle is identical. I just move faster now.
Research without shortcuts
Mapping the fundraising landscape in 2022 meant manual benchmarking: 20+ platforms, two-sided competitive analysis, no AI to cluster patterns. I built the research framework by hand: centralized vs. decentralized, strengths vs. weaknesses, UX patterns vs. trust failures. That discipline, structured thinking before any screen, is now what I use AI to accelerate. The discipline didn't change. The tools did.
Research without shortcuts
Mapping the fundraising landscape in 2022 meant manual benchmarking: 20+ platforms, two-sided competitive analysis, no AI to cluster patterns. I built the research framework by hand: centralized vs. decentralized, strengths vs. weaknesses, UX patterns vs. trust failures. That discipline, structured thinking before any screen, is now what I use AI to accelerate. The discipline didn't change. The tools did.
User research as design foundation
50+ structured interviews, each running between 45 minutes and 90 minutes. Every insight mapped back to a design decision. The connection between "users forget to complete the second transaction" and "one-step commitment flow" wasn't obvious. It required synthesis, not just note-taking. That synthesis process is now where I use Claude most. Pattern recognition from qualitative data that would have taken a week now takes hours.
Design system as force multiplier
Building 120+ components as a solo designer across 5 major product versions required a system tight enough that every new decision felt obvious. I built it manually in 2022. Now, I use AI to generate variants, document decisions, and feed consistency guidelines back into prototyping tools. The principle is identical. I just move faster now.
Design system as force multiplier
Building 120+ components as a solo designer across 5 major product versions required a system tight enough that every new decision felt obvious. I built it manually in 2022. Now, I use AI to generate variants, document decisions, and feed consistency guidelines back into prototyping tools. The principle is identical. I just move faster now.
LABEL
What designing for irreversible decisions taught me about trust, systems, and the work that happens before any screen.
What designing for irreversible decisions taught me about trust, systems, and the work that happens before any screen.
Trust is earned in the moments users expect to be misled.
Trust is earned in the moments users expect to be misled.
Trust is earned in the moments users expect to be misled.
The highest-trust moments in the Aelin flow weren't the onboarding or the branding. They were the deal terms screen, the commitment confirmation, and the post-investment portfolio view. Every moment where a user could reasonably fear being deceived was an opportunity to do the opposite. Trust design means showing up exactly there, with exactly the right information.
Two-sided products fail when you design for the average of two users.
Investors and founders have fundamentally different success criteria, different mental models, and different fear states. The design decision that worked was not finding a middle ground. It was designing two distinct experiences around the same underlying data. The system was shared. The experience wasn't.
The most important design work is the work that makes the system feel inevitable.
On Aelin, none of the core decisions, one-step commitment, abstracted smart contracts, trust-first information hierarchy, were UI choices. They were product architecture decisions made during research, before any screen existed. The screens were the last 20% of the work. That ratio has held true on every product since.
Trust is earned in the moments users expect to be misled.
The highest-trust moments in the Aelin flow weren't the onboarding or the branding. They were the deal terms screen, the commitment confirmation, and the post-investment portfolio view. Every moment where a user could reasonably fear being deceived was an opportunity to do the opposite. Trust design means showing up exactly there, with exactly the right information.
Two-sided products fail when you design for the average of two users.
Investors and founders have fundamentally different success criteria, different mental models, and different fear states. The design decision that worked was not finding a middle ground. It was designing two distinct experiences around the same underlying data. The system was shared. The experience wasn't.
The most important design work is the work that makes the system feel inevitable.
On Aelin, none of the core decisions, one-step commitment, abstracted smart contracts, trust-first information hierarchy, were UI choices. They were product architecture decisions made during research, before any screen existed. The screens were the last 20% of the work. That ratio has held true on every product since.
Raphaël.D
Senior UX & Product Designer
Pages
© 2026 Raphaël.D. All rights reserved.
Raphaël.D
Senior UX & Product Designer
Pages
© 2026 Raphaël.D. All rights reserved.
Raphaël.D
Senior UX & Product Designer
Pages
© 2026 Raphaël.D. All rights reserved.