Raphaël.D

Get In Touch

Raphaël.D

My Work

Designing With AI

Get In Touch

Back To My Work

Designing Trust into High-Stakes Financial Flows

2022-2023

DAO

Founding Designer

Trust Design

High-Stakes Financial UX

Designing trust into irreversible decisions: A High-Stakes Fundraising Protocol

Led the end-to-end product design of a fundraising protocol, 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

Capital deployed through flows I designed

Every dollar committed through interfaces built from scratch. Clarity wasn't a preference, it was a requirement.

$8

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

Screens designed from 0→1

From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.

180

Screens designed from 0→1

From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.

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

Users Onboarded

Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.

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

Users Onboarded

Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.

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

Users Onboarded

Investors and protocol founders navigating high-stakes capital decisions through flows where transparency was the core design principle.

$8

Capital deployed through flows I designed

Every dollar committed through interfaces built from scratch. Clarity wasn't a preference, it was a requirement.

180

Screens designed from 0→1

From blank canvas to a complete product, across investor flows, founder dashboards, and post-deal portfolio management.

Context

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 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

My role

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Deep Dive

Designing for two users with opposing needs

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

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

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

Deep Dive

Making irreversible commitment feel safe

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 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

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

Deep Dive

Turning on-chain data into portfolio clarity

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

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

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

Project Timeline

18 months. Four 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.

Phase 0

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.

Phase 1

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.

Phase 2

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.

Phase 3

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.

Phase 4

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.

AI-Embedded Workflow

AI wasn't available the way it is now. But the discipline was already there.

Aelin was designed in 2022–2023, 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

12 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, on OODA, I use AI to generate variants, document decisions, and feed consistency guidelines back into prototyping tools. The principle is identical. The leverage is 10x.