Kotodama
All-in-one exchange · a study in responsible design

Four products that can hurt people.
Designed to tell the truth.

Kotodama is a custodial exchange — spot, futures, earn, custody — the kind of product that can quietly ruin someone with a mistimed 125× position or a return that isn't what it says. So this isn't a feature tour. It's a study of the four hardest, most honest design problems the product poses, where the job of the interface is to make the danger legible, not invisible.

言葉には靈が宿る——リスクは、はっきり言う。 Words carry spirit; say the risk plainly.

4
Products — spot, futures, earn, custody — one honest system
4
Hardest design problems, each with a working demo
言靈
Kotodama — the spirit that lives in words. Say the risk plainly.
Concept
Original IP · not shipped · not audited
Concept · design study Fictional brand · original IP Not shipped · not audited Engineering figures illustrative

What this is. A design study of an all-in-one exchange, rebuilt as original IP under a fictional brand. It is not a live product and has not been security-audited. The engineering figures it references (throughput, latency, matching) are researched and illustrative — not systems I built or benchmarked.

Where my domain ends. I design the interface and the information architecture. I don't run a matching engine, a custody desk, or a compliance function. And a deliberate stance runs through the whole study: high-leverage retail crypto derivatives are restricted or banned for retail in most regulated markets — ASIC caps retail crypto-CFD leverage; the UK FCA bans crypto derivatives to retail — so I treat the leverage not as a feature to sell, but as a risk to make understood. The honesty is the hero.

The design problem

Four products, four risk profiles, one account.

An exchange isn't one product; it's four with wildly different risk. Spot can lose you your position. Futures at 125× can lose you everything in a wick. Earn can quietly under-deliver behind a headline APY. Custody can lose the lot to a bad withdrawal.

The temptation is to make each one feel exciting and frictionless. The responsible design does the opposite where it matters: it keeps the liquidation price on screen at all times, states the return two ways so it can't flatter, gates the dangerous products behind suitability, and never lets a transfer quietly wreck a position. Make the honest thing the easy thing — across all four, from one coherent account.

01 · The unified account

One balance, three ledgers, no silent damage.

Every user holds three books — spot, futures, earn — and moves value between them instantly, off-chain, at no fee. The hard part isn't the transfer; it's the guardrail: money leaving the futures account must never drop an open position below its maintenance margin. The interface has to refuse the unsafe transfer and explain why, in the moment.

Instant transfer — with the margin guardlive
Spot account
Spot
12,400.00
USDT · available
Futures account
Futures
3,000.00
margin · pos: 1 BTC long 10× · maint. 900
Earn account
Earn
5,000.00
USDT · flexible savings
02 · Futures, honestly

The liquidation price is never off screen.

Most of what hurts people in futures is hidden: where you get liquidated, why the "price" that triggers it isn't the last trade, and the fact that leverage quietly caps out as your position grows. Kotodama surfaces all three — a permanent liquidation readout, a three-exchange mark price that resists single-venue wicks, and a tiered risk limit that lowers max leverage as size climbs. Move the leverage and watch the liquidation close in.

Liquidation calculator — isolated marginlive
Liquidation price
Distance to liquidation
Initial margin
Maint. margin rate
Max leverage (this size)
Mark price3-venue avg (anti-wick)
Position notional (USDT)Max leverageMaint. margin
0 – 50,000125×0.4%
50,000 – 250,000100×0.5%
250,000 – 1,000,00050×1.0%
1,000,000 – 5,000,00020×2.5%
> 5,000,00010×5.0%
03 · Earn, truthfully

A yield that can't flatter itself.

"12% APY!" is where earn products lie. Kotodama shows APR and APY together so compounding can't inflate the headline, quotes floating rates as a 7-day annualized figure (not a guarantee), and states the early-redemption penalty before you commit, not after. Change the amount and term; see both numbers and what a fixed term actually costs to break.

Yield — stated two wayslive
APY
Est. interest (period)
Daily accrual
APR ↔ APY gap
04 · Access by suitability

You unlock danger by proving you're ready for it.

Access is progressive: a new user can look but not trade; verification opens spot and limited leverage; full verification (and a suitability step) is what unlocks high leverage and large withdrawals. It's KYC/AML doing real work — and it's also a design pattern, gating the most dangerous surfaces behind the most friction. Tap a tier.

Level 0
Unverified
Register only
Level 1
Basic
ID + face check
Level 2
Advanced
Address + video + suitability
The system behind the four — researched, illustrative

Nine modules the design has to stay coherent across.

The four problems above sit on top of a whole exchange. I mapped it to design with the system, not around it — but the architecture and its figures are researched context, not systems I built or benchmarked.

User & identity
Registration, 2FA, KYC tiers, device & API-key management.
Asset ledger
Three books, double-entry, deposits/withdrawals, instant transfer.
Spot matching
Orderbook, limit/market/stop/OCO, depth over WebSocket.
Futures engine
Perpetuals, liquidation, insurance fund, ADL, mark price.
Earn
Flexible, fixed, staking, dual-investment; daily accrual.
Risk control
KYC/AML, trade & withdrawal risk, rules + ML dual-track.
Fees
VIP tiers, maker/taker, funding rate, earn management fees.
Notifications
Email, push, SMS; critical alerts multi-channel (liquidation).
Admin & custody
KYC review, hot/cold wallet, maker-checker, audit log.
The honest ledger

What this evidences — and what it does not.

✓ What it evidences
A designer can hold a full multi-product exchange in their head and design its hardest cross-cutting problems, not just one screen.
Product judgment about restraint: keeping the liquidation price visible, stating returns two ways, gating danger by suitability, refusing an unsafe transfer.
Command of the real mechanics — maintenance margin, mark price, tiered risk limits, APR-vs-APY, funding — expressed as interaction, not jargon.
A visual identity (washi, ink, vermillion) that reads as considered design, deliberately not a dark exchange clone.
✕ What it does not claim
Not a shipped or audited product; the demos are simulations with illustrative numbers.
Not an endorsement of 125× retail leverage — the study exists to show it should be gated, disclosed, and restrained, not sold.
The engineering figures (throughput, latency, matching) are researched, not systems I built or benchmarked.
I design the interface and information architecture — I don't run a matching engine, a custody desk, or a compliance function.

A designer who holds the whole exchange — and restrains it.

That's the signal Kotodama sends: system breadth, mechanism fluency, and the judgment to make the dangerous thing honest instead of exciting.