ConsenSys – How Might We Move Users To DeFi
|Final Report||Final report for the Hypersprint|
|Collaborative Whiteboard||Online whiteboard with design concepts|
|Prototype Design||Prototype screens for the entire flow|
ConsenSys’s CodeFi team (whilst it was being formed) engaged Deep Work Studio with the goal of finding out how we could get speculative traders (e.g. an Ethereum investor in the 2017 bull run) to actively use their assets.
We validated designs for the “Alloy” platform. Testing different concepts and directions to find what the market would value.
From the results, CodeFi validated the market and put together a team to build the DeFi Score:
With what we built it is definitely easy to utilize assets and (preferably) earn from them. A little bit more handholding and clearer explanations about the different options could enhance the experience and prepare it for development.
1. Can we simplify the experience enough without abstracting away information (some) users care about?
The content on the dashboard showcases almost everything our testers wanted to see and the “onboarding” gave them the opportunity to explore all options of utilizing their crypto they could think of. The challenging part was the “strategy list” which, as we knew, had a confusing combination of parameters. After the tests it’s clear that there are three main points which people think about when choosing what to do with their money:
- General information – Which token am I using and on which exchange?
- Result expectation – What’s the percentage I am earning? How much would I have after which time?
- Risk assessment – What is my risk? How much is the exchange used? How high is the liquidity? What is the protocol used to secure the funds?
The expanded section could show more elaborate details to these three points.
The dashboard already displays the most relevant information and just needs to be slightly clearer about the position details. Everyone liked the Zerion-style overview and more details can be made accessible from the menu links on the top.
2. Can we offer people all of the same guarantees of traditional finance (insurance, security, etc.)?
Yes, in the future.
Currently the user audience is rather limited to crypto enthusiasts and the most interesting part about this system is earning (borrowing and swapping is nice but not primarily interesting). Most store their assets somewhere on a wallet being aware that nothing happens to its value apart from the fluctuation in price. Our concept presents a first version of increasing the value of owners holdings while offering the possibility to create more case-specific services based on the individual strategies later on. The public demand definitely exists and every tester agreed that it looks uniquely professional.
The “guarantees” also depend on how well we can quantify risk and display/visualize useful (yet without commitment) return predictions. This can definitely work to some extend, as most testers didn’t care about the precision of the predictions and risk profiles can be easily visualized with what we already have.
Another point worth mentioning is the wallet connection. As many current platforms are not 100% trustworthy and people own several thousands of dollars on their hardware wallets, almost everyone from the testers seemed skeptical about connecting a wallet and actually starting to use the platform. Most intended to just play around with smaller amounts from Metamask before committing with more money. This will change over time with a higher adoption rate, but important to keep for the wallet connection process.
Building a product?
Custom consulting and product design for your project goals.
Join our Hypersprints and use our educational material to improve your skills.