Levenue
Levenue is a financing marketplace connecting companies seeking capital with investors funding them. The existing product made this look like a spreadsheet, not a marketplace: the opposite of a platform meant to make capital access easy. A loan only closes when a company's ask and an investor's terms converge, splitting the design problem into two hesitation points — 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
Problem
Once an investor placed a bid, tracking what happened next meant guessing — a single "status" label couldn't show whether a deal was waiting on the company's signature, a contract, or funds, and outstanding vs. invested totals were nowhere to be seen.
Solution
Replaced the flat status label with a visible step sequence — bid made, accepted, contract sent, signed, funds received — so an investor can see exactly where each deal is stuck, and surfaced total outstanding against total invested at the top of the page. Clearer status meant investors weren't left wondering if a deal had stalled, which kept them placing new bids instead of waiting on old ones.
Result
+3% loans closed.
Reusing one layout logic across both companies and investors cut friction on the side that was stalling deals — same structure, different content, less relearning mid-negotiation. That translated into a 3% increase in loans successfully closed.