Gated access
How intentional friction helped save millions.
The problem
Every day, thousands of people signed up for Payoneer. But most of them never actually used the product.
Only 14% completed their first transaction, and just 4% matched our ideal customer profile. The other 86% generated no revenue, while still costing Payoneer an estimated $16 million a year.
The challenge: How could we reduce low-value registrations without making it harder for valuable customers to join?
Estimated annual cost of registrations generating no revenue
A little background
Payoneer already offered different experiences for different types of customers.
I had previously designed Payoneer Lite, a simpler experience for gig-economy customers, along with the paid upgrade to Premium.
But customers registering directly with Payoneer could still access the full experience without making the same commitment.
We needed a better way to manage access during registration.
My role
I led the design strategy, exploring how intentional friction could improve onboarding efficiency, reduce acquisition costs, and create a smoother experience for high-value customers.
I worked closely with Product, Data, Engineering, Content, and Onboarding teams to explore, design, and test different approaches.
Exploring the options
A payment page wasn't the only way to introduce commitment, so I started by looking at how other products handled access.
What I found
I reviewed Airwallex, LinkedIn, Shopify, and Wise.
Many products introduced their plans after learning something about the customer. Some offered free trials, while others asked for payment earlier.
The most interesting question wasn't how much they charged, but when they asked customers to commit.
Different ways to create a gate
I mapped six types of gates:
Identity
Verify who the customer is
Eligibility
Check whether they qualify
Time
Limit access to a certain period
Payment
Require a financial commitment
Commitment
Ask customers to agree to specific conditions
Approval
Grant access after a review
This gave us a broader view of the possible solutions before focusing on payment.
Six concepts, two directions
I explored six approaches:
- Plan selection
- Commitment form
- Freemium
- Expanded Basic plan
- Upfront charge
- Free trial
Each had different implications for the customer experience and the business.
For the first experiment, we focused on Free Trial and Upfront Charge. They offered two different ways to introduce commitment without completely blocking registration.
Finding the right moment
Once we had the concepts, we needed to decide where the gate should appear.
Payoneer's onboarding was owned by another team, so I worked with the Onboarding PM and Product Designer to understand their goals, KPIs, and the impact a new payment step could have on the journey.
We considered three locations:
After discussing the tradeoffs, I proposed placing the gate after the Showroom. This gave customers a chance to explore Payoneer's features before asking them to commit.
Earlier in the journey felt too soon. Later, customers might feel frustrated after spending time setting up their accounts.
There was also another challenge: pricing hadn't been visible during registration before. We needed to introduce it in a way that felt clear and reasonable.
Designing the experience
We designed three versions of the gate, each asking for a different level of commitment.
01. Free trial
Customers received 30 days of access before their annual subscription started.
This was the easiest way to enter. Customers had time to explore Payoneer before deciding whether to continue.
02. Upfront charge
Customers agreed to pay an annual fee during registration, but the fee would only be collected when money arrived in their Payoneer balance.
Why not charge them immediately?
At that point, we couldn't charge new customers directly by credit card. And because they were still registering, they didn't have money in their Payoneer balance yet.
We used the plan page to explain when and how the payment would happen.
It also gave us an opportunity to introduce the idea of a Payoneer balance early in the journey, so customers could become familiar with a key part of the product before using it.
03. Credit card charge
This was the strongest commitment. Customers needed to enter their card details before continuing with registration.
While we were testing the first two approaches, Engineering was building the infrastructure needed to support card payments.
We also designed a combined Showroom and plan page, allowing customers to explore the product and make their payment decision within the same experience.
Designing beyond the gate
The Free Trial raised another question: what happens if someone wants to cancel?
We didn't have the full subscription management infrastructure ready for the experiment. Still, it was important to design an understandable way for customers to leave the trial.
We created a temporary cancellation flow that simulated the experience without requiring the complete backend functionality. This helped us test the journey before investing in the full solution.
Testing the approaches
We ran three rounds of experiments. Each round helped us understand how much commitment we could ask for without losing valuable customers.
- 01
Round 01 — Finding the right balance
Free Trial vs. Upfront Charge vs. regular onboarding
Round 1 test flow Both approaches reduced registrations, but Upfront Charge also discouraged customers we wanted to keep.
Free Trial showed the most promising balance, so we continued testing it.
- 02
Round 02 — Testing at scale
Free Trial vs. regular onboarding
Round 2 test flow We expanded the experiment across CLM countries, with 14,000 users per group over 60 days.
The results were encouraging:
- Fewer low-quality approvals
- −41%
- Higher activation rate
- +40%
- Higher total transaction volume
- +8%
- Higher revenue per active user
- +50%
The biggest changes came from lower-scoring customer groups, while our most valuable segments were largely unaffected.
We also found that 80% of Free Trial cancellations came from customers who hadn't completed their first transaction.
- 03
Round 03 — Testing stronger commitment
Credit Card Charge vs. Free Trial
Round 3 test flow Once the card payment infrastructure was ready, we tested whether a stronger commitment would work better.
Compared with Free Trial, Credit Card Charge resulted in:
- Fewer approvals
- −53%
- Lower total transaction volume
- −17%
- Lower revenue per active user
- −15%
It created more friction, but not better business results. Free Trial gave us the better balance.
The outcomes
Free Trial became the preferred solution for gated onboarding.
The projected business impact at full rollout included:
- Estimated annual operational savings
- $5.2M
- Potential additional revenue
- $6–7M
- Revenue per active user in the experiment
- +50%
- Total transaction volume in the experiment
- +8%
Where the savings come from
The estimated savings covered several operational areas:
- $2.1M
- KYC vendors
- $1.1M
- KYC tickets
- $1M
- Screening alerts
- $650K
- Screening vendors
- $250K
- Customer care onboarding tickets
What happens next?
Free Trial is the preferred direction for a wider rollout, with opportunities to adapt the experience to different markets and customer segments.
And although Credit Card Charge didn't win the experiment, the work wasn't wasted. We now have the infrastructure to ask for a stronger payment commitment when it's needed.
For example, some markets face higher risks of registrations from unsupported locations or attempts to bypass eligibility restrictions. In those cases, requiring card details could provide an additional barrier.
Rather than applying the same gate everywhere, we can choose the level of commitment that makes sense for each market.
What stayed with me
One of the biggest things I took away from this project is that friction isn't always a bad thing.
As designers, we often try to make experiences faster, easier, and more seamless. But sometimes, asking someone to stop and think is exactly what the experience needs.
Especially in fintech, where people make financial commitments, the goal shouldn't always be to get them through a flow as quickly as possible. It should be to help them make an informed decision.
Good friction isn't an obstacle. It's a deliberate part of the experience.
This project also changed how I think about ownership. I want to be involved before the requirements are written, to understand the business problem firsthand and help shape the solution, not just design the screens.
And in a large organization, that means being proactive: bringing the right people into the conversation early, understanding dependencies, and making sure decisions don't slow down delivery.
For me, the work doesn't end at launch either. Looking at the results and deciding what to improve next is just as much a part of design as creating the experience itself.