Web3 UI Audit: 5 Real Products and How We’d Improve Them

Web3 is full of promising products—but many fall short when it comes to user experience.

We conducted a quick UI/UX audit of five live Web3 apps. The goal: highlight what works, call out what doesn’t, and share actionable design fixes any team can apply.

(Note: We’ve anonymized the names here to focus on learnings, not callouts.)

🧪 Product 1: The DeFi Dashboard That Feels Like a Spreadsheet

What’s good:

Advanced users get full control
Packed with data and charts
Supports multiple protocols

UX issues:

No onboarding or overview
First-time users have no clue what to do
Tiny buttons, inconsistent layout

Fixes we’d make:

Add a simple “Start here” flow
Use progressive disclosure to hide advanced data
Introduce card-based layouts and better spacing for clarity

🧪 Product 2: The Wallet App With Too Many Steps

What’s good:

Clean visuals
Simple transaction flow
Great mobile support

UX issues:

Wallet connect is required before you can explore
Users are prompted to sign twice for basic actions
Confusing permissions language

Fixes we’d make:

Delay wallet connection until it’s needed
Batch signature requests or clarify each one
Use plain language for approvals: “You’re allowing this app to use your ETH”

🧪 Product 3: NFT Marketplace That Looks Great—But Doesn't Explain Anything

What’s good:

Polished UI
Fast search, nice visuals
Smooth purchase flow (if you know what you’re doing)

UX issues:

No education about what NFTs are or how they work
No wallet simulator or demo mode
Listings missing trust signals (e.g. verified contracts, creator info)

Fixes we’d make:

Add a “How it works” overlay for new users
Label collections and creators clearly
Introduce a preview/demo mode for users without wallets

🧪 Product 4: DAO Voting Platform With Zero Context

What’s good:

Transparent voting process
Open governance data
On-chain execution support

UX issues:

Proposals are written like GitHub issues
Voting feels disconnected from outcome
Users don’t know what happens after they vote

Fixes we’d make:

Use natural language summaries for proposals
Add impact previews: “If passed, this will...”
Send post-vote follow-ups or status updates

🧪 Product 5: Bridging Tool That Induces Panic

What’s good:

Supports many chains
Low fees, fast execution
Real-time price feed

UX issues:

No transaction tracking after submit
Users don’t know when funds will arrive
Too many technical terms (e.g. “wrapped”, “gas boost”, “route optimization”)

Fixes we’d make:

Add a visual timeline for bridging steps
Use plain status messages: “Funds arriving on Arbitrum in ~3 mins”
Collapse advanced info with toggles

TL;DR

Even “working” Web3 products often fail on onboarding, clarity, and emotional design
Great UX isn’t about adding more—it’s about making things feel obvious
Every extra click, unexplained modal, or awkward state = trust lost

At Halaska, we do deep product audits like this all the time—and help fix the problems most teams miss.

Want us to audit your Web3 product? [Reach out →]