Levenue
The existing product made financing look like a spreadsheet, not a marketplace — the opposite of a platform whose entire value proposition is easy access to capital. A loan only closes when a company's ask and an investor's terms converge, so the design problem split into two hesitation points on either side of the same negotiation: the sell side (companies posting requests) and the buy side (investors evaluating and bidding).
Key Metric
Loans closed between companies and investors
Levenue is a SaaS platform for non-dilutive financing. The number my design work was measured against was the volume of loans successfully closed between companies and investors — every screen in this case study was built to move that number.
Sell Side
Dashboard
Companies needed to understand their borrowing position at a glance — how much they could borrow, how much they'd already borrowed, repayment history — without digging through separate views. A founder who can't quickly answer "where do I stand" hesitates to post a new request, so clarity here was what kept companies actively using the platform.
Sell Side
Create request
Submitting financials and setting loan terms can feel like a loan application — a format people are conditioned to abandon halfway through. Every completed request is a company entering the funnel that leads to a closed loan, so reducing abandonment here directly increases the number of deals available to close.
Sell Side
Bid status & decision
Comparing multiple incoming bids with different amount/term tradeoffs required mental math — less money sooner vs. more money later. A company that can't easily compare offers delays or defaults to inaction, so making the tradeoff scannable was what moved undecided requests toward a close.
Buy Side
Dashboard
Problem
Investors needed a clear read on portfolio performance — this month's payouts — using the same mental model as the company dashboard, just with different content.
Solution
Reused the dashboard pattern from the sell side rather than designing a separate paradigm. An investor who understands their return at a glance stays active on the platform and keeps bidding — more active investors means more competitive bids and more closed loans.
Buy Side
Marketplace
Problem
Investors scanning multiple open requests had to interpret flat, uncontextualized metrics (MRR, Net Churn, Net Growth, Runway) with no signal on whether the numbers were good or concerning. The bid form itself sat exposed on the browsing view, treating every visit as an implicit "commit now."
Solution
Replaced flat metric values with value + comparison point + directional indicator, so an investor can judge a company's trajectory without doing the math themselves — and separated browsing from committing by replacing the always-open bid form with a single "Make a bid" action, so placing a bid became a deliberate decision rather than a form sitting mid-page.
Buy Side
Bid details & status
Write-up coming soon.
Result
One shared mental model, two audiences.
Rather than designing separate dashboard and status-tracking structures for companies and investors, the same layout logic was reused across both sides — same structure, different content. Once someone learns how to read their dashboard or track a status on one side, that knowledge transfers if they ever interact with the other. This kept the design system smaller and cut the learning curve platform-wide: one model serving two audiences, instead of two models each serving one.