6 → 1
Transfer types unified under one interaction model Each with different compliance, data, and approval requirements.
$360M
Processed through the new transfer system Across deposits, withdrawals, wires, ACATS, and internal transfers.
+42%
Transfer volume growth, year one No marketing push ran in parallel — the lift came from the redesigned flows.
What was actually broken.
Zoe had one transfer type, desktop deposits and needed five more. The architecture couldn't absorb them. Every new type meant a new screen, and clients would have to learn each one.
No mobile support either, in a product where clients increasingly managed money from their phones.
Three constraints shaped every decision.
Compliance
ACATS needs broker authorization. IRA deposits need contribution year and limit tracking. Wires need recipient verification. Legal requirements, all inside one system.
Team
Me, one PM, one FE, one BE, one QA. No design system.
Scope kept growing
Three sprints on paper. Two years in practice. Wires, checks, ACATS, Internal Transfer, then Bulk Transitions
Same skeleton, different surfaces.
Earlier flows were limited to desktop. The redesign treated mobile as the primary platform, shaping the structure, hierarchy, and interactions before extending them to larger screens.
Two things surprised us after launch.
Client success runs them. We built for the wrong audience.
The audience could handle more density than we shipped.
What shipped and what it changed.
+42% volume, year one
No marketing push. Faster flows plus mobile as a new platform.
$360M+ processed
Every new type inherited the pattern immediately — no ramp-up.
Fewer support escalations
Inline validation caught issues before submission, not after.
Reused for Bulk Transitions