Uncovering why investors with significant assets avoided a complex category of crypto products
I led a qualitative mixed-methods study to understand why Structured Financial Products (SFP), a category of crypto investment products, weren't growing as expected.
Structured Financial Products weren't growing as expected. Was it the name? The design? No one knew exactly why.
Structured products are a complex category built on derivatives and varied risk-return profiles. But growth was lower than expected, and the PM had guesses about why but no concrete evidence. The design team sought my help, though the PM was skeptical that research could help.
1. Growth below expectations
The SFP products sit in a higher-risk, higher-potential-return category. While they are more complex, it should still draw a pool of interested investors, yet adoption wasn't growing as expected. Why?
2. Was it the name?
The PM suspected "Structured Financial Products" was vague or felt too complex, losing users before they engaged.
3. A UX uplift with no clear target
The team wanted to improve the SFP experience but didn't know what actually needed enhancing.
Designing a single session to answer both why users weren't investing and whether the pages made sense
They needed to know why non-SFP users who held significant assets weren't investing at all, and whether the category's name or its pages were the cause.
- Uncover why non-users with sufficient assets don't invest, and what they choose instead.
- Assess whether they can discover and understand the products and the page content.
Interview + usability test + concept test, in one session.
Why? Interview for behaviour and risk appetite, usability test to watch these users explore the live pages, and concept test to validate a new idea for the product pages.
Questions spanned five areas: user behaviour, discoverability, product understanding, learning and education, and product info sufficiency.
Existing customers who were not SFP users: passive, lower-frequency traders with meaningful assets, so people who could invest but weren't.
Why? This participant profile fits with what SFP products are designed for.
The customer-service team for the core segment, and a third-party panel for overseas English speakers. I moderated in both English and Chinese.
Crypto background, current strategy, and risk appetite, with follow-ups on margin, derivatives such as contracts and options, and how often they trade.
"What kind of crypto trade or investment do you currently do?"
Think-aloud on the live product pages, starting with perception of the category.
"When you want to assess whether you would like to invest in one of these Structured Products, what would you do now on OKX? Imagine I am not here, do what you normally do, but let me know what you are thinking as you browse."
Reactions to a new landing concept. I presented the concept and paused for users to review it.
"What are your initial thoughts or impressions about the page presented?"
Every session ran with consent and recording, a testing account so users never exposed their own funds, and a PM or designer observing, which became the key to research's impact in the SFP squad.
Four barriers that stopped users from understanding and investing
Users barely recognised "Structured Products" as a category
Their understanding of it was set by how familiar they were with one product (Dual Investment), and almost no one knew the others.
"I honestly still don't really understand your structured products. Is it like you run them yourselves, like a fund manager?"Participant
Banner blindness hid the product explanations
The key explainers sat in an ad-like top banner that users had learned to skip. People wanted to understand a product by browsing the page itself, so the education existed but went unseen.
Insufficient product information undermined confidence to invest
These users needed to understand how a product's earnings are generated before they would subscribe. Without a clear explanation of how it worked, they didn't feel confident enough to proceed, regardless of the rate of return.
"I see the rate of return, but I don't know what this thing is, so I basically won't look into it further."Participant
Principal protection sparked interest once users understood it
Once users learned that one product is designed to protect principal, interest jumped. It was a genuinely appealing, lower-risk option they simply didn't know existed. A discoverability problem, not a product problem.
The change that stuck: clear product explanations on the landing page
Of the 15 findings, the one with the deepest, most lasting effect was transparency and explanation. A later redesign pulled product explanations and the FAQ out of the ad-like hero banner, the exact banner-blindness trap the research exposed, and rebuilt them on the product landing pages, with more visual explanations and expanded FAQs.
That pattern is now the standard across every structured product, with extensive FAQs also available in the Help Center.
- Plain-language tooltips for technical terms (Term Rate, and later knock-in, knock-out, and strike on Snowball).
- Explicit currency labelling, fixing a risky assumption that funds would be settled in "weaker" tokens.
- Specific, traceable copy in place of generic explanations.
- The education format users actually wanted: a short video for the gist, backed by text, charts, and scenarios for depth.
Moving from findings to delivery
The study didn't end at the readout. My documented next steps carried it into delivery:
Every finding entered into Jira for tracking and follow-up.
Ran an ideation session with the PM, product designer, and content designer to turn findings into fixes.
Planned usability testing on the redesigns and new products. That next round became the Snowball study.
Mixed-methods research that changed the product and the team
The study produced 15 prioritised findings that drove real content and design changes, validated the new landing concept before build, and set the pattern every structured product still follows. It also embedded usability testing into structured-product launches and exposed the need for a standing recruitment channel for hard-to-reach segments.
"I think users will figure it out." · "We don't have time for usability testing." · "Can't we just launch and see?"The PM, before the study
He wasn't dismissive; he had never seen research work. Then he sat in on the sessions and watched real users misread core mechanics, misjudge terms, and hesitate to trust the platform with their money. By the end, he became the strongest advocate for research in the squad.
On the next structured product, Snowball, the PM was the one fighting to fit usability testing in before development. The product moved from offline OTC sales to a self-serve online page, tested before launch this time: 25+ issues resolved pre-launch.