We intentionally spoke with people across the crypto spectrum, from first-time buyers to experienced users who regularly used MetaMask, centralized exchanges, and other crypto products. Participants came from key markets including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, and Nigeria, giving us a mix of experience levels, purchasing habits, and regional needs. We wanted to understand not only how people bought crypto, but how they compared their options, decided which providers to trust, and responded when a purchase didn’t go as expected. Despite their differences, the same four concerns kept coming up: understanding total cost, anticipating provider requirements, recovering from failed paths, and trusting third-party handoffs.

Alongside user interviews, I studied how similar products handled the decisions people make when buying crypto. Direct competitors helped us understand how providers, quotes, and handoffs were being handled, while simpler purchase experiences showed how reducing choice could make buying feel more straightforward. I also looked outside crypto at products built around comparing many options, borrowing familiar patterns for making tradeoffs clear, offering recommendations, and helping people choose with confidence.

Before settling on a direction, I explored different ways the Buy experience could be structured from end to end. I worked through different approaches to selecting an asset, entering an amount, choosing a payment method, comparing providers, and handling regional, network, and transaction constraints. These explorations helped us understand which decisions belonged together, what information people needed at each step, and where complexity could be reduced. From there, we narrowed the strongest ideas into a direction we could prototype and test with users.

Once we aligned on the flow and visual direction, I built an interactive prototype to test the experience before committing it to development. We tested with 20 participants across the US, UK, Canada, Brazil, and Nigeria, spanning different levels of crypto experience. Participants worked through buying $300 of ETH, choosing a payment method, comparing providers, and continuing through the purchase. Watching where people hesitated, misunderstood their options, or needed more information helped us refine the experience and decide what needed to be included in the first MVP.

Most participants moved through the core purchase flow successfully and felt confident choosing a provider, giving us confidence in the overall direction. Where people struggled was more specific: understanding buy limits, making sense of fees, and knowing what to expect when leaving MetaMask. These findings helped us focus the MVP on making those moments clearer without reworking the overall flow.

Buy & Sell became easier to access directly from the wallet, giving people a clear starting point whether they were purchasing crypto or cashing out. From there, the experience could guide them through the choices relevant to their transaction without asking them to understand everything happening behind the scenes.

Where someone’s bank was located determined which providers, payment methods, and assets were available to them. We asked for region upfront the first time they used Buy & Sell, then used that selection to preselect the most common local currency while still allowing users to choose another. Their preferences were remembered for future purchases and could be changed at any point, keeping setup quick while ensuring the options shown throughout the experience were relevant from the start.

As Buy & Sell expanded across more assets and networks, token selection needed to scale without making that complexity the user’s problem. Search supported people who knew exactly what they wanted, while network filters, popular assets, existing holdings, and recognizable asset information created faster paths for everyone else. This gave users multiple ways to find the right token while keeping an expanding asset universe easy to navigate.

Payment methods could vary significantly by region and provider, with each option carrying different expectations around speed, purchase limits, and availability. Rather than presenting them as interchangeable choices, we brought those tradeoffs directly into selection, helping users understand what each method offered before moving forward. Their choice then narrowed the experience to relevant providers and quotes, reducing uncertainty later in the purchase.

Comparing providers meant weighing more than price. Rates could change, providers varied in reliability, and familiarity could matter as much as getting the highest return. Rather than asking users to evaluate every quote equally, we recommended a strong option upfront while keeping the full marketplace one step away. Clear labels like Best Rate, Most Reliable, and Previously Used made meaningful tradeoffs easier to understand, while live quote refreshes and transparent values helped users choose with confidence.