Back to portfolio
CreativeSimulated project

Web3 Product Designer portfolio brief

A simulated creative exercise for Web3 Product Designer. Treat it as realistic practice, not real client or protocol work.

Objective

Audit a live wallet or dApp flow

Expected deliverables

User flowWireframesPrototypeFinal UIState matrixDesign-system contributionResearch or usability report

Recommended workflow

  1. Audit a live wallet or dApp flow
  2. Redesign it with full state coverage
  3. Test comprehension and document trade-offs
  4. Review the result against the rubric, then package it as a case study.

Constraints and safety

  • Use only public sources or clearly simulated data.
  • Never include seed phrases, private keys, or wallet secrets.
  • Redact private user, company, security, legal, or compensation information.
  • State every assumption you make.

Tools in practice

Figma
Map wallet, approval, transaction, and failure states; prototype flows; and maintain reusable product components.
FigJam
Map user journeys, assumptions, workshop decisions, and edge cases before committing the flow to high-fidelity screens.
prototyping and research tools
Test wallet and transaction flows with users, compare variants, and record where comprehension or trust breaks down.
analytics
Measure the role-specific signals behind user flow and wireframes and document attribution, time window, and known gaps.
Dune where relevant
Collect and analyse the evidence used in user flow and wireframes, with definitions and reproducible steps.
handoff and issue tools
Connect design states to acceptance criteria, answer implementation questions, and track visual or interaction defects through release.

What a strong submission shows

  • A wallet onboarding case study
  • A token-approval redesign
  • A transaction-state library
  • A usability audit tied to decisions

Weak submission patterns

  • Beautiful screens with no states
  • Dribbble concepts with no implementation constraints
  • Case studies that claim conversion without evidence

Review rubric

  • Accuracy of claims and sources
  • Relevance to the target role
  • Decision quality and trade-offs
  • Completeness of the deliverable
  • Clarity of communication
  • Honest limitations and next steps

Present it as a case study

  • Explain the problem, sources, decisions, ownership, constraints, output, review, and what you would change.
  • Show the final artifact before the process notes.
  • State what you owned and what belonged to other people.
  • Label the work as simulated, and keep any real contribution clearly separate.

Interview questions this project helps you answer

  1. How would you design a safer token approval flow?

  2. Which states are missing from this transaction experience?

  3. What evidence should justify changing a familiar pattern?

Turn this into an application