This bonus interview was not part of the initial Delegator UX RFP scope. It was conducted with one participant who was external to the RFP team, and the session was relatively lightweight compared with a full usability study.
The findings are still useful as directional input, especially because the participant was approaching the delegation flow as a first-time user. However, because this represents only one user’s experience, the observations should be treated as informative rather than conclusive.
The interview highlighted several delegation-specific navigation and confidence issues. The participant was able to move through the delegation flow, but first-time discovery, orchestrator evaluation, approval-to-delegation state handling, and unbonding information all surfaced as areas where the experience could be clearer.
The most important findings were that first-time users may not immediately know where delegation lives, orchestrator selection depends partly on clear definitions and reputation signals, and users need more visible information about delegation status, unbonding timelines, and the consequences of undelegating.
The participant initially struggled to locate the delegation features in Livepeer Explorer. As a first-time user, they looked under areas such as treasury and governance before finding the delegate option.
This suggests that the current navigation does not clearly signpost delegation for users who are not already familiar with Livepeer’s terminology or Explorer structure. The Delegator UX should make delegation more discoverable from the main navigation and should avoid assuming that users already know where staking-related actions live.
During orchestrator selection, the participant wanted clearer explanations of the statistics shown in the orchestrator table. The interface does include tooltips for some column titles, but the tooltip delay was long enough that the participant did not realize the tooltip existed. This created the impression that the table lacked definitions for important metrics.
This suggests that tooltips should appear quickly enough to be discoverable, and that the most important column definitions may need more visible helper text rather than relying entirely on hover behavior.
The participant also indicated that orchestrator choice is not purely financial. In addition to expected yield, they considered trust, reputation, and the perceived credibility or visibility of an orchestrator. This reinforces the value of presenting reputation and reliability signals alongside financial metrics.
Yield projections were a positive part of the experience. The participant found it useful that the interface communicated expected returns over a one-year period for the delegated LPT.
The participant encountered a small approval-to-delegation state issue during the delegation process. After the approval transaction completed, the approve button remained the main available action for longer than expected, while the delegate button remained disabled. The participant had to switch widget tabs before the delegation button became enabled.
This may indicate that the allowance-checking interval is slightly too long, or that the widget needs to refresh approval state more quickly after a successful approval. The issue did not suggest a major flow problem, but it did create a moment of uncertainty during the transition from approval to delegation.
The participant also avoided granting unlimited spending permission in MetaMask, citing security preferences. This suggests that approval permission options may be worth explaining, but this should be treated as a secondary improvement rather than a core issue from the interview.
After delegating, the participant expected clearer status information in the My Account page, specifically within the delegating tab. They noted that the interface did not make the delegation status, delegation duration, or unbonding period sufficiently visible.