The Story So Far
Cryptocurrency platforms are inherently complex. As billions in digital assets flow through exchanges, wallets, and custodians, the need for institutional-grade custody has never been more critical. But here’s the paradox: while backend systems are engineered for resilience—with cold storage, multi-signature protocols, and robust audit trails—the front-end experience often leaves decision-makers in the dark.
This article explores the UX gaps within custodial vaults—a specialized but essential feature in many institutional crypto platforms—and outlines methods to identify, prioritize, and resolve those gaps. The goal: to design interfaces that inspire trust, enable transparency, and support secure operational control.
What Are Crypto Custodial Vaults?
Custodial vaults are secure storage environments designed for institutions and high-net-worth individuals to delegate digital asset control to a platform—under strict governance protocols. These vaults typically include:
- Multi-signature approvals (e.g., 2-of-3 signatories)
- Cold vs. warm wallet segregation
- Role-based access control
- Detailed audit trails and transaction history
Despite the sophistication of these backend systems, the front-end experience often falls short. Many platforms prioritize patching immediate user issues over addressing foundational design flaws.
The result is a fragmented, reactive UX that creates friction, erodes user confidence, and diminishes the perceived security of the system.
Rather than designing for clarity, control, and long-term trust, platforms often attempt to build around surface-level problems—losing sight of the core need: making institutional-grade custody intuitive, transparent, and secure to use.
The UX Gap Analysis Process
To uncover design flaws, we conducted a UX gap analysis on a live custodial vault module within a client-facing crypto platform. The method involved:
- Task-Based Walkthroughs: We ran structured evaluations of core flows such as transaction approvals, role assignments, and permission changes to understand user behaviors, bottlenecks, and pain points in context.
- Stakeholder & End-User Feedback Review: Existing feedback from internal teams and external users was analyzed to triangulate common friction points and feature limitations, especially around transparency and trust signals.
- UI Heuristics & Interface Benchmarking: The interface was evaluated against established usability heuristics (e.g., Nielsen’s 10 principles) and benchmarked against best-in-class custodial and enterprise platforms to identify missed UX opportunities and outdated patterns.
- Information Architecture & Cognitive Load Assessment: We reviewed the module’s navigation structure and terminology to determine whether users could intuitively find, interpret, and act on key tasks—especially in high-stakes, time-sensitive contexts.
- Security UX Evaluation: Given the nature of the platform, we examined how well security-related actions (e.g., approvals, multi-role permissions) are surfaced and explained, ensuring they inspire confidence rather than friction.
- Error Handling & Feedback Mechanisms: We analyzed how the system communicates success, failure, or pending actions—critical for user trust and operational clarity in financial environments.
Key UX Gaps Identified
Here are the most critical gaps uncovered—mapped against their impact on usability and operational risk:
- No Visual Approval Workflow
- Issue:
- Task-based walkthroughs revealed that users lacked visibility into the transaction approval lifecycle—unable to track pending approvals, responsible approvers, or estimated timelines.
- Risk:
- Delays in high-value transactions; increased dependency on support teams.
- Fix:
- Introduce a visual approval tracker showing status progression, named approvers (e.g., “2 of 3 complete”), and time lapsed.
- Issue:
- Poor Permission Transparency
- Issue:
- Heuristic review exposed that role assignments (admin, approver, viewer) were buried in nested menus, with minimal visibility or editing flexibility.
- Risk:
- Governance gaps, misconfigured permissions, and potential for unauthorized access.
- Fix:
- Surface a dynamic permission matrix with badges, inline edits, and intuitive invite flows.
- Issue:
- Unclear Vault Architecture
- Issue:
- Information architecture analysis showed no distinguishable visual cues between cold and warm vaults, affecting asset transfer decisions.
- Risk:
- User confusion over liquidity access, leading to operational errors or delays.
- Fix:
- Deploy iconography and labels (e.g., ❄️ for cold, 🔥 for warm) with quick-glance vault categorization.
- Issue:
- Raw, Technical Audit Logs
- Issue:
- Logs reviewed during usability audits displayed cryptic system codes (e.g., TX_8373_APPROVAL_TRIGGERED) without contextual language.
- Risk:
- Limited trust in system transparency; added burden on compliance teams.
- Fix:
- Translate system events into natural language logs: “Anna approved 2.5 BTC withdrawal at 10:02 AM.”
- Issue:
- No Escalation or SLA Indicators
- Issue:
- Scenario mapping revealed no alerts or escalation flows for stalled approval requests.
- Risk:
- Breached SLAs, frozen assets, disrupted workflows.
- Fix:
- Set escalation thresholds (e.g., “Pending 3+ hours”), add fallback approvers, and enable SLA tracking dashboards
- Issue:
- Lack of Onboarding & Contextual Help
- Issue:
- User onboarding journeys lacked embedded guidance on vault setup, approval policies, and safety protocols.
- Risk:
- High learning curve for new users; increased training overheads; hesitation to trust platform operations.
- Fix:
- Implement guided walkthroughs, tooltip assistance, and a “Vault Policy Explainer” modal during key setup moments.
- Issue:
Gap Prioritization Matrix
Priority | Gap Area | Description | Impact Score (1–5) |
🔴 High | Approval Workflow Visibility | Users lack visibility into approval progress, causing delays and operational uncertainty. | 5 |
🔴 High | Permission Role Mapping | Roles are unclear and hard to edit, increasing the risk of misconfigurations and governance issues. | 5 |
🔴 High | Audit Trail Legibility | Technical logs lack context, complicating compliance audits and eroding user trust. | 4.5 |
🔴 High | Onboarding & Contextual Guidance | New users struggle with setup and workflows, increasing support burden and reducing platform adoption. | 4.5 |
🟡 Medium | Vault Type Differentiation | Cold vs. warm storage isn’t clearly indicated, leading to confusion during transfers. | 3.5 |
🟡 Medium | SLA / Escalation Indicators | No fallback or alerts when approvals stall, potentially disrupting time-sensitive transactions. | 3.5 |
🟢 Low | Terminology & Labeling Inconsistencies | Inconsistent or unclear labels reduce UI clarity and user confidence in complex flows. | 2 |
🟢 Low | UI Visual Hierarchy & Theming | UI lacks visual distinction and polish; impacts ease-of-use and perceived product quality. | 2 |
Why These Gaps Matter
Crypto custody isn’t just about securing assets—it’s about providing users with visible, verifiable assurance that assets are safe, policy-governed, and accessible only under defined conditions. Every gap between backend logic and front-end visibility weakens that trust.
More importantly, these platforms serve teams—not just individuals. Operations leads, compliance officers, and fund admins all rely on transparent, multi-user interfaces to execute and govern workflows. Gaps in approval clarity, permission mapping, or audit readability don’t just frustrate—they increase operational risk, slow down mission-critical transactions, and undermine platform credibility.
Closing these gaps enhances:
- Trust and Transparency:
- Users need to see that governance is working—not assume it.
- Operational Continuity:
- Bottlenecks due to unclear workflows or stalled approvals can halt high-value activity.
- Compliance Readiness:
- Clear roles, readable logs, and policy cues reduce audit overhead and internal confusion.
- Onboarding and Adoption:
- New users ramp up faster when UX reflects underlying logic with clarity and support.
In short: bridging these gaps is not just good UX—it’s essential infrastructure for secure, scalable, and trusted custody platforms.
Tools Used
To ensure our UX gap analysis was grounded in real user behavior, stakeholder insights, and usability best practices, we adopted a multi-layered toolkit:
Stakeholder & User Interviews
- Tool:
- Excel + Google Docs
- Purpose:
- Capture qualitative data, pain points, and role-specific friction points for mapping mental models to interface logic.
Flow Mapping & Journey Visualization
- Tool:
- FigJam
- Purpose:
- Model actual user journeys across the custodial vault—highlighting handoffs, blockers, and approval loops across personas.
Heuristic Evaluation
- Tool:
- Manual review using Nielsen’s heuristics
- Focus Areas:
- Visibility of system status, error prevention, match between system and real-world concepts, user control, and consistency.
Interface Benchmarking & UI Audit
- Tools:
- Figma + internal design system references
- Purpose:
- Evaluate screen-level clarity, element hierarchy, terminology consistency, and visual cues related to permissions and vault status.
Usability Walkthroughs
- Tool:
- Google Meet (recorded sessions)
- Purpose:
- Capture task-based flows in real-time with user commentary, surfacing gaps in understanding, confidence, and workflow friction.
Audit Trail Review
- Tool:
- Log Viewer & JSON event logs
- Purpose:
- Assess how machine-level events are exposed (or not) in the front end, and where transparency breaks down for end users.
Synthesis & Prioritization
- Tool:
- Airtable / Excel
- Purpose:
- Classify issues by impact on usability vs. operational risk, leading to a structured gap prioritization matrix.
Final Thoughts
In the race to build secure, compliant custodial platforms, design often takes a back seat. But security without usability is just another vulnerability.
If users can’t understand how custody works—or navigate it confidently—they’re far more likely to make mistakes, seek workarounds, or abandon the platform altogether.
The real opportunity in crypto UX doesn’t lie in flashy dashboards or animations. It lies in making complex systems feel simple, transparent, and trustworthy.
A well-designed vault interface isn’t just good UX—it’s operational peace of mind
Authors
Ashank Gyanchand
UX Manager
Shalaka Negi
Delivery Head
