Five products that felt like five different apps (payment methods, vouchers, loyalty, goals, investments) turned into one wallet people could actually trust.
Fintech 2022 iOS & Android
View PrototypeUsers often had to figure out where something was before they could use it.
That matters more here than almost anywhere else in the app. Wallet actions happen right before a payment, so a moment of hesitation isn’t just UX friction: it’s someone stalling with money on the line.
Open DANA’s wallet and everything a wallet needs was already there: cards, vouchers, loyalty, investment. Nothing was missing. It just didn’t feel like it belonged to the same product.
The problem was never the number of features. It was that each area had its own layout, labels, navigation, its own interaction patterns. Using the wallet could feel like opening five different apps that happened to share the same account.
The fragmentation showed up even within a single screen. Cards, vouchers, loyalty, and other products each used a different structure and visual hierarchy. Some actions were easy to find. Others meant digging a level deeper before you’d even reached them.
The opportunity wasn’t more features. It was making the wallet feel connected, so people could understand what they had, find what they needed, and manage it without learning a new pattern for every product.
Opportunity: Unify the wallet into one place where users can manage and choose how they pay, without relearning a different product every time.
The chapters below are how that changed: what the research reframed, the model that held everything, and the pattern that shipped.
The redesign was informed by research across Wallet v2, broader digital wallet research, and Wallet v3 usability testing.
Three waves over fourteen months, and the same four themes kept coming back. None of them matched the mental model the old wallet was built on:
Users did not only associate their wallet with money. They also thought about things they owned or managed through DANA, including bank cards, savings, PayLater, investments, identity cards, and membership cards.
The wallet imagined as storage only
Treat the wallet as a system for managing different assets, not just a list of payment methods.
Voucher, loyalty, ticket, and ID card categories were not always immediately clear. Users sometimes relied on the visual appearance or brand of an item to understand what it was.
Vouchers and tickets treated as peers
Use clear section labels and counts so users can understand each category without inspecting individual items.
Users liked the idea of having important things in one digital wallet, but physical wallets still had advantages: familiar, widely accepted, and a reliable backup. 86% were interested in adopting digital wallets, while 88% felt secure using them, but trust was still an important consideration.
Trust blocking digital ID
Security and reliability need to be communicated clearly, especially when putting more financial assets in one place.
Users expected actions such as adding an asset, searching, changing payment settings, and managing ID cards to work in familiar ways. When an action was placed somewhere unexpected or used unfamiliar wording, users became unsure of what would happen.
The add button nobody could find
Keep important actions easy to find and consistent across the wallet.
V3 answered each one structurally.
The research set the constraints. Four bets became non-negotiable:
The first version was essentially a list of payment methods. It was straightforward: everything was visible in one place. But as more products were added, the list became harder to scan and manage.
V2 introduced clearer sections for things like Balance, PayLater, and Cards. This made the wallet easier to scan and reduced the feeling of looking at one long list. But the products still felt somewhat separate. Users still had to remember where things lived and how each section worked.
V3 was a shift in how we thought about the wallet. Instead of treating each product as its own destination, we brought them into a more consistent structure. Products could be scanned in the same way, managed using similar patterns, and found through a more predictable navigation model. Search made it easier to get to specific items, while SmartPay helped reduce repetitive payment method selection.
The main shift: from a page that stores payment options to a place that helps users manage how they pay.
Three explorations clarified what needed to stay visible, what people could prioritize, and what could become quieter.
The model only matters if it ships. Payment methods anchor the top, every asset follows the same card structure, and the same motion carries across pockets, so each behavior is learned once.
Header Section label and count
Content The same card structure
Shared action One CTA placement
The same underlying rules were applied across cards, vouchers, loyalty, investment, and other wallet products: card structure, spacing, section headers, labels, CTA placement, and interaction behavior. The components did not need to look exactly the same. They needed to feel like they came from the same system.
Five real Wallet sections adopted the same anatomy: a header, content, and one shared action.
Cards and payment methods are some of the most frequently used and most sensitive parts of a wallet. So the wallet starts with the user’s most common question: “How do I pay?” Payment methods become the anchor, while other assets remain accessible through the same overall structure.
The bet on one coherent wallet, instead of five products sharing an account, showed up in the numbers within the first cycle after launch. Here is how to read them:
+53.8%*
Since V3 launch
+42.4%*
Since V3 launch
>80%
Of users hold 3+ assets
Depth over breadth. The KPI the team managed to was users holding more than the asset threshold: the multi-asset wallet as the goal state.
Placement carried part of it. V3 put Wallet in the bottom navigation for the first time, so some of the lift is distribution, not pixels.
This project reminded me that designing a financial product is never just about making things easy to use. People also need to feel that the product is predictable, and that they’re still the one in control of it.
DANA already had cards, vouchers, loyalty, investment, and more. The challenge was never adding another feature: it was making all of it feel like it belonged to the same wallet.
So the redesign focused on the structure behind the surface: how products were grouped, how people found them, and whether similar actions behaved the same way everywhere.
The result was a wallet that was easier to scan, more consistent to use, and, based on the numbers after launch, one people came back to more often. Five products stopped feeling like five different apps. They started feeling like one wallet that happened to do five things.