<aside> 💡
80% of assets under management were sitting in the most conservative fund. Not because users were risk-averse — but because the app gave them no reason, no guidance, and no structure to do anything else. This is how we redesigned the entire investment experience around behavior, goals, and compliance — without forcing a single decision.
</aside>
| Metric | What it meant |
|---|---|
| 80% AUM concentrated in conservative strategy at baseline | The data point that defined the entire design problem |
| Dual-path architecture launched with full regulatory compliance | Guided and non-guided paths serving fundamentally different user intentions |
| 15 usability sessions — 10 prototype + 5 real DINN clients | Validated unlock logic and goal-based onboarding before any development |
| Regulatory questionnaire repositioned as a trust-building UX step | Mandatory legal requirement transformed from friction into allocation input |
| Improved perceived clarity and confidence confirmed across all sessions | Users felt more prepared — not from more data, but better framing |
| Firebase analytics strategy defined and handed off | Tracking progression, drop-off, diversification, and compliance gaps |
We took a flat list of funds and turned it into a real experience — one that actually helps people understand where to put their money.
📸 IMG pendiente: Side-by-side — lista plana de fondos anterior vs sistema de paths con onboarding goal-based y unlock progresivo
Company: DINN — Actinver's digital investment app for first-time investors in Mexico
My role: I started this project myself — I saw the problem in the data and pushed to fix it. I ran the workshops, designed the flows, worked through the compliance constraints, and tested everything with real users before it went to development.
Timeline: October – December 2024 — from first workshop to development handoff
📸 IMG pendiente: Diagrama del equipo cross-functional — qué aportó cada área
When we mapped user behavior, the pattern was clear: users weren't distributing their investments. They were just picking one option and staying there.
Behavioral side: People didn't have enough context to make real decisions. A lot of them confused investment timeframes with mandatory lock-in periods. When they saw short-term losses in intermediate strategies, they went straight back to the conservative option. The app was good at showing financial data — but it wasn't helping people understand what that data meant for them.
Structural side: There was no progression, no milestones, nothing to guide users through a learning process. The product was basically asking people to make complex financial decisions without giving them any tools to interpret those decisions.
Regulatory constraint: There was also a mandatory risk tolerance questionnaire required by law — we couldn't remove it or make it shorter. But the way it was positioned felt like a random legal detour, completely disconnected from the rest of the experience.
The real hypothesis: Users don't default to conservative options because they're risk-averse. They default because the product gives them no other frame to work with.
An external study confirmed this. Research conducted in parallel (MARGIN CALL, Provokers/Phenoma, March 2025 — 20 in-depth interviews) showed that current users had mentally categorized DINN as an "inversión para lo diario / chiquita" — a small, everyday investment tool — regardless of how financially sophisticated they actually were. And the Actinver brand was the main reason new users decided to try the product at all. Trust came from the parent institution, not from the product experience. That made this more than a UX problem — it was a brand integrity problem too.