AtlasCase 05 / 07Product / brand / motion

Asymmetry Finance

Making the explanation part of the product

The Asymmetry engagement spanned product UX, design-system refinement, identity, motion, and product education. The central opportunity was to stop treating those as separate layers.

Role
Lead Designer, contract
Period
Nov 2023 – Dec 2025
Scope
Product design / Design systems / Brand identity / Product education / Facilitation / Motion direction
LeadProduct + visual direction
6 weeksFocused end-to-end sprint
1 systemProduct, brand, education

The problem

DeFi products often explain their mechanisms outside the interface, then ask the product UI to carry trust through styling alone. That separation creates friction precisely when a user is trying to understand risk and consequence.

I refreshed the product design system and brand identity across interface, marketing, motion, and storytelling, including a focused six-week sprint to take one product from concept through design and development.

Working idea
If the mechanism is difficult to explain, the explanation is part of the product.

How it fits together

The explanation is part of the product.

Explore the system

  1. Make the financial model legible before asking for action.

    See it in the workThe connected USDaf model

  2. Connect choices to their risk, duration, and result.

    See it in the workThe locking decision

  3. Use identity and motion to reinforce, not obscure, meaning.

    See it in the workThe landing direction

  4. Carry the logic through the implementation handoff.

    See it in the workThe original design source
The whole system

Key decisions

The choices that shaped the work.

01

Turn protocol education into interface material

System diagrams, risk explanations, and product language were treated as design artifacts—not documentation left for someone else to solve after the UI.

02

Connect expression to the product model

Identity, asset language, hierarchy, and motion were developed around the product’s concepts so marketing and application surfaces could feel related without becoming identical.

03

Show the original design source

The source work is shown here independently from later production translation. That distinction protects the design decisions from being confused with implementation drift.

The work

01 / 03

  1. System explanation / USDaf. Deposits, borrowing, redemption, liquidation, and pool behavior are presented as one connected model.

System explanation / USDaf. Deposits, borrowing, redemption, liquidation, and pool behavior are presented as one connected model.

The work

02 / 03

  1. Design-source artifact / landing direction. Product proposition and live financial signals share the opening hierarchy.

Design-source artifact / landing direction. Product proposition and live financial signals share the opening hierarchy.

The work

03 / 03

  1. Design-source artifact / locking. Duration, voting power, balance state, and education are held in one decision surface.

Design-source artifact / locking. Duration, voting power, balance state, and education are held in one decision surface.

What this case shows

The design source, shown honestly

The public implementation does not consistently preserve the front-end decisions in the source work. This case study therefore shows the authored design artifacts and names that boundary directly rather than presenting implementation drift as design intent.

What the work delivered

  1. 01

    Improved hierarchy, flows, and consistency across the product.

  2. 02

    Connected brand expression, motion, marketing, and product education to the interface work.

  3. 03

    Ran working sessions that aligned product, engineering, and team decisions.

Next case study

06ConcordPrediction markets / UX

What happens when a prediction market’s outcome is disputed?