How I designed a staking feature from ground up reducing financial user risk
Overview
Emeris provides a single interface for a fragmented blockchain landscape, enabling users to earn passive income through staking
My role and impact
Led complete design of staking feature in 3 week sprint, collaborating directly with PM and Engineering to launch Emeris's core feature. Starting with competitive and user research, I designed the complete experience that enabled users to earn passive income through staking while supporting PoS network security.
The challenge
Designing for uncertainty, not just functionality
Concentration risk
Staking platforms required choosing one validator for all funds. If that validator had issues user's entire stake was exposed.
Psychological barrier
Users were paralysed by fear, not confused by complexity. The problem wasn't technical complexity.
Unclear validator quality
No clear way to evaluate validator reliability. Unlike traditional finance where banks are regulated, validators in Cosmos operate independently.
Objectives
Business
Product
Approach
Research under resstriction
With a 3 week timeline and crypto users' privacy concerns, traditional interviews weren't feasible. Instead of waiting for perfect information, I analysed existing forum discussions to identify actionable insights.
This research revealed several barriers
Behaviour
Platform
Unexpected insight
I initially assumed users needed validator education. But research revealed they already understood fundamentals they just skeptical and feared making wrong choice.
Personal Experience
I chose an existing platform. Selected a validator that looked reliable. Staked 100% of my intended amount and hit "Confirm"
Then I realised two things
I had just locked my funds for 21 days
This information was somewhere in the interface, but I missed it. The irreversible nature of the decision hit me only after committing
My entire stake was concentrated with one validator
If that validator went offline, got slashed, or underperformed my entire position was exposed. I had no way to distribute risk
My insight
I wasn't a beginner. I understood staking mechanics. But the interface design made it easy to make risky choices without realizing the consequences.
Solution strategy
With no users to validate solutions, I made directional decisions based on research and competitive analysis.
The core question
How to provide a safe and guided user experience reducing user skepticism and increasing confidence?
Decision 1
Step by step flow
Why?
Competitive research revealed most common pattern using modal popup. But in our case we had edge cases with onchain transfers while staking. I considered step by step approach.
Decision
Step by step flow with contextual information at each stage.
Decision 2
Information density
Why?
With no time to validate custom approaches, I leveraged Atomscan, the Cosmos explorer users already relied on, reducing learning curve.
Decision
Familiar structure, cleaner presentation.
Visual improvement
Inline status badges only for problems. Active validators unlabelled reduces noise, focuses attention on exceptions.
Decision 3
Multi validator distribution
Why?
Existing platforms provided only single validator staking. When I staked myself, I concentrated 100% without realising the risk.
Decision
Surface concentration risk and offer distribution as visible option
I designed the flow to make concentration visible. After entering amount, interface shows 100% with one validator then prompts distribution. This reframes multi validator from advanced feature to obvious safety measure.
The further steps would include
Validator education
Expand educational content about validator performance metrics, commission rates, and decentralisation benefits
Portfolio management
Cross chain staking dashboard and unified rewards tracking across multiple networks
However, the timing of the Beta launch coincided with a declining market. At that moment, the leadership decided to postpone further iterations and focus on optimising core revenue generating products.
Lessons Learned
Designing under time constraints
Developing a new product for multiple personas simultaneously makes it challenging to prioritize specific needs and requires constant balancing and trade-offs
Working in uncertainty
Designing a feature without users to validate against requires making directional decisions based on competitive analysis and first principles. Not every decision gets validated with data. Some must be defended with reasoning until launch provides evidence