When it comes to fiat on-ramping, UX is king. And while the UX of ramps providers certainly leave a lot to be desired - UI bugs, mediocre card conversion, clunky Know-Your-Customer processors - there’s also a lot that’s in control of the wallets that integrate these services.

In Part 1 we walked through some of the mistakes wallets make when building their on-ramp flows. Now we’ll take a closer look at some of the design elements that lead to suboptimal conversions. 

Choice over-load for users

A user that buys crypto just wants one thing: to get from fiat currency to their preferred cryptocurrency. They don’t care who makes the sale.

Why then do wallets often display entire lists of different third-party brokers, most of whom have no brand recognition for the user? Just see some of these examples:

Often the answer provided is that this empowers users to choose their preferred ramp provider. They’re also able to compare the amount of crypto they get across providers, or which payment methods are supported.

But as we explained in a previous article, ramps will sometimes engage in fee spoofing, meaning this information isn’t always accurate. This illusory choice can actually result in transactions being more expensive for the user. 

The agency to choose their onramp might be of importance for crypto-native users who might already have an account somewhere, it is possible to retain agency without overloading users with choice. In addition, we’ve previously shown that its crucial to return users to the ramp providers they have used before.

The Solution: Nudging

Instead of being presented with multiple options, users should be funneled down the path with the best combination of low fees and high conversion rates via an intelligent routing.

By pre-selecting for the user based on an intelligent routing engine, it’s possible to increase the conversion rate immensely. 

Our data shows that 80% of users follow the recommendations made by Onramper! The trick here is to make sure onramp selection is not a mandatory elements of the user-flow. Instead, the user should be nudged to the best onramp, with the option to select something else for those users that want to self-select. The results of nuding in combination with smart onramp routing speak for themselves:

Hard-coded fees and settlement times

Another often-repeated sin is showing the user hardcoded information on the available paths. The intent can be noble: to inform the user to make better choices.

In practice, however, many wallets don’t build the actual infrastructure to make this information meaningful.

For example, data can be displayed that shows which payment methods are supported, which are priciest, and the expected time for a payment to complete. But displaying each of these data points has its flaws: 

• Displaying which payment methods are supported often results in payment methods that are not relevant to the location being displayed. Moreover, not every payment method is available for every fiat currency or pair, so this info is often misleading.

• Displaying a “payment method fee” doesn’t tell the full story when it comes to pricing: a low-fee payment method can be more expensive than a high-fee payment method since the on-ramp might increase spread.

• Displaying the time it takes to complete a transaction is difficult to do accurately, since it often depends on the on-ramp’s and the user’s banking infrastructure. E.g. SEPA can take 1-3 minutes or 1-3 days, depending on whether the sending and receiving banks support SEPA Instant.

Hardcoded data can also become out-of-date as things evolve. 

The solution:

It’s best to avoid displaying hardcoded data altogether and instead use dynamic engines to display the right payment methods and information. In this, Onramper is your best friend, with dynamic payment method recommendation engines, real-time quotes and onramp routing algorithms at your fingertips. 

Closing thoughts

Optimizing on-ramp flows for conversion requires strategic design decisions that ensure every step guides users seamlessly toward a completed transaction. 

In our next post, we’ll dive deeper into some of the mistakes wallets make when it comes to data analytics. 

In the meantime, I invite everyone - client or not - to have OnRamper analyze your app. We’ll do a free analysis to identify the good, the bad, and the ugly. Schedule a call via the link above and reply with: "Please analyze my current setup."