73 applications tracked - 23 sent, 3 replied, 1 rejected. Click any row to expand.
Hi Wise Customer Reporting team,
A friend of mine has been on Wise for four years. Every time I ask why he doesn't just use his bank, he says the same thing: "You'll switch eventually." I've been thinking about switching for about two years now. I've opened the app a few times, watched it rename itself, seen it redesign twice, watched it get closer. The reporting surface is the part that still holds me back - it still feels built for a compliance team, not for the person who just needs to know where their money went quarter to quarter. I want to work on fixing that from the inside.
The problem your reporting squad is closing isn't a missing-data problem. It's an irrelevance problem. The data exists across four sources - Upwork export, GBP invoice, Wise transaction log, Estonian tax declaration - and none of it talks to each other without someone manually becoming a part-time accountant. The traditional approach to cross-border income reporting has become irrelevant; what hasn't caught up yet is the product experience that proves it.
The most relevant work I can point to here is Bidmii, a Canadian home-services marketplace I was embedded in from 2020 to 2022. The product complexity was always about making money moving between parties legible - homeowners, contractors, platform, payouts - in a way that felt simple and trustworthy even when the underlying transactions weren't. We contributed to a $1M pre-seed raise, got 5,700+ users on platform, and moved leads up by 52%. Not because we made it pretty. Because we made the financial state of the product readable at a glance.
Seven years of international clients from a Tallinn business account means seven years of this reconciliation problem on personal repeat. I'm not designing from a persona. I'm designing from the quarterly pain of having four data sources where there should be one view.
Two things I'm genuinely curious about: where does your team see the biggest gap between what freelancers and small business owners actually need from the reporting surface and what's currently there? And how much of the roadmap is driven by power-user needs versus the occasional-transfer user who does one thing a month?
Looking forward to connecting.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Bob W team,
Bob W is building something specific: boutique apartment hotels where the direct booking relationship replaces the OTA dependency, and loyalty mechanics replace the transactional stay. That's not a property management play - it's a trust infrastructure play. The whole product has to earn the kind of relationship a friend has with you before you've paid them anything.
"Bob is your friend in travel" is a product philosophy before it's a tagline. A real friend in travel doesn't surface terms and conditions before the experience - they give you the right room, remember your preferences, and make you feel like the stay was designed for you specifically. The booking flow, the loyalty mechanics, the post-stay communication: those have to deliver that feeling before the guest ever checks in. My brother stayed at a Bob W in Tallinn last spring. He texted me: "It's like the building actually knows you're a guest." That's the product standard you're holding yourselves to, and it's a hard one to build.
The most directly relevant thing I can point to is Forest Hotel in Lithuania - a boutique property I built a direct-booking site for. The brief was: make the website the most trusted booking channel the property has, not a fallback from Booking.com. Result: 20-25 direct reservations a month. That's the same commercial question Bob W is working on, at a different scale.
The hook in your roadmap that interests me most: the plan to more than double footprint by end of 2027. The booking and loyalty systems that work at 2,000 apartments don't work the same way at 4,000. The product decisions that feel like edge cases now become load-bearing infrastructure fast. That's the kind of scaling problem where getting the product architecture right before the growth hits is everything.
I also spent four years embedded in NextCrew (2022-2024), a staffing SaaS where the product complexity was multi-role: workers, managers, dispatchers, payroll integrations - all in one product, all with different mental models of what "done" looks like. 2.5x sales increase over the contract. The parallel to Bob W's multi-stakeholder product (guest, property, operations, loyalty) is more than surface-level.
Two things I'd want to understand better: how are you thinking about the loyalty mechanics as footprint scales - is it a centralized program or does it flex per property? And where does the product team currently feel the most friction between the guest-facing experience and the operations layer underneath it?
Looking forward to the next steps.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Creditstar Group team,
The obstacle between someone keeping money in a savings account earning nothing and moving it into SmartSaver isn't the interest rate. It's the "but is it actually safe?" question they can't shake - not because the product is unsafe, but because nothing in the experience has answered it yet. That's a trust design brief. And I've spent seven years building products where trust is the load-bearing element: financial workflows, marketplace payments, compliance-adjacent UX, multi-party transactions where one moment of doubt loses the user permanently.
The part of SmartSaver's challenge I find most interesting is the EEA multi-market complexity. Earning regulatory trust in Switzerland and consumer trust in Lithuania at the same time requires a different kind of product thinking than a single-market startup. The constraint is the interesting part - you can't just localize the surface; you have to localize the trust architecture itself. Estonian company running pan-European operations: I know that context from the inside, not from a market research deck.
The most transferable work: four years embedded in NextCrew (2022-2024), a workforce management platform where payroll-adjacent workflows meant every UX decision had compliance implications and every clarity failure had real financial consequences. 2.5x sales growth over the engagement. Before that, Bidmii (2020-2022) - a Canadian marketplace where financial trust between homeowners and contractors was the core product problem. $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users.
The gap SmartSaver is closing - between "I know I should invest" and "I just did it" - is where product design either earns its keep or doesn't. Most saving products assume the user has already resolved the hesitation. The ones that actually move behavior are the ones that design that resolution into the product flow itself.
Two questions I'd genuinely want to explore: how does SmartSaver currently handle the trust-building moment for users who've never invested before and aren't sure they should? And how much of the product roadmap is shaped by the regulatory differences between markets versus the behavioral differences between user segments?
Ready to dig deeper with your team - whenever works.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Pipedrive team,
Design systems don't fail at the component level. They fail when the team that's supposed to use them doesn't feel like the system is theirs. The gap between "we have a design system" and "the product feels consistent" is almost always a documentation and adoption problem, not a missing component. I've built and maintained systems across two multi-year embedded engagements - and the most valuable thing I learned is that a design system is a shared language, and languages only work if people feel invited in.
At Bidmii (2020-2022) I built the complete system from scratch: full component library, interaction states, spacing tokens, Figma-native documentation, handoff specs. The system had to cover both the public-facing website and the SaaS product under a single visual language. +52% lift in leads post-redesign, $1M pre-seed contributed to with the team, 5,700+ users onboarded. At NextCrew (2022-2024) I maintained design ownership across a 4-year engagement as the company repositioned from SMB to enterprise - which meant the system had to evolve without breaking the consistency existing users relied on. 2.5x sales growth.
The part of this role I find specifically interesting is the developer partnership layer. I write HTML and CSS well enough to have real conversations about implementation constraints - not just hand off specs and wait. The gap between design intention and React component reality is where design systems quietly degrade. I've learned to close that gap by being in the conversation early, not at the review stage.
Three things I'd want to understand about how Pipedrive approaches this: how does the design system handle product squads that need to move quickly and deviate from canonical components? Is there a defined path for promoting a squad-level component into the system, or is that still case-by-case? And is the Figma library and the live React component library treated as one canonical source or maintained separately?
Looking forward to connecting.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Reiterate team,
Month-end close is the finance team's sprint. Every data point has to be right. Every reconciliation discrepancy has to be found, explained, or resolved before anyone goes home. The design challenge isn't to make the product beautiful - it's to make the person running the close feel like the tool is on their side at the exact moment the pressure is highest. That requires trust design at the output level - trust in what the reconciliation result actually says, not just in the interface around it.
The most direct parallel in my work: four years at NextCrew (2022-2024), a workforce management SaaS where every UX decision had payroll compliance implications. A confusing field or an ambiguous confirmation wasn't a UX issue - it was a financial error downstream. I owned all design across the engagement as the company repositioned from SMB to enterprise. 2.5x sales growth. At Bidmii (2020-2022) financial transactions ran through every interaction on a two-sided marketplace where the trust stakes were real for both sides. $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users. Neither is a reconciliation product, but the discipline is identical: design for a user who can't afford to be wrong, already knows their domain better than I do, and will trust the tool only after it has earned that trust repeatedly.
The product-to-headcount ratio tells me the core technology already works. The design question now is how to make it feel like the finance director is in control - not just that the system is running. That's a visibility and confidence problem, not a feature problem.
Three things I'd want to understand: where does the biggest friction sit for first-time users going through their first close cycle? How do finance teams currently handle the exceptions - the items that don't auto-reconcile? And is the current user base replacing an existing tool or building a new process from scratch?
Ready to dig deeper with your team - whenever works.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Printify team,
The best marketplace products for small business owners are the ones they stop seeing. Printify's merchants are focused on their creative work, their customers, their margins. A POD platform that keeps pulling their attention back to the platform layer is one that hasn't finished its job yet. The best outcome the product can achieve is when the seller forgets it's there.
Seven years of designing for the exact user Printify serves: founders and small business owners who need to get a commercial product up without becoming platform experts. I've learned what they actually use versus what they ignore, what makes them feel capable versus overwhelmed, and where they abandon the tool when it doesn't answer their question fast enough. That's not theoretical - it's from over 100 projects for commercial clients.
The closest structural parallel: Bidmii (2020-2022), a two-sided marketplace SaaS where homeowners and contractors both had to trust the same platform with entirely different needs. One side came to solve a problem. The other came to run a business. I owned the full design cycle - research through design system through handoff - across a product that went from prototype to $1M pre-seed and 5,700+ users. At NextCrew (2022-2024), the merchant equivalent - staffing agency owners - needed enterprise-level compliance workflows without losing the operational speed they relied on. 2.5x sales growth.
No print or e-commerce case studies in my portfolio - that's the honest gap. The discipline maps; the specific domain doesn't yet. I'd close it fast.
Two things I'd want to understand: how does Printify currently think about the experience for a merchant in year two - someone past the template but not a power user yet? And where does the biggest gap sit between what merchants try to do on the platform and what the product currently makes straightforward?
Looking forward to the next steps.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Lightyear team,
Platform PMs work on what customers don't want to think about. The job is to make paying, converting, and withdrawing so frictionless that users stay focused on the thing they came to Lightyear to do: invest. When the infrastructure earns trust - fast, reliable, no ambiguous states - the product layer on top gets to be about investing. When it doesn't, every support ticket is about the platform, not the portfolio. That architecture of earned trust is the job.
I trade for my own account - BTC and altcoins on Binance, TradingView as primary charting layer, multi-currency accounts across seven years of international invoicing. I know the operational friction of moving money across currencies and platforms. The multi-currency account layer isn't a feature - it's the reason a European investor doesn't have to maintain four separate brokerage accounts the way they did five years ago. I understand why Lightyear's promise matters.
The work that maps most directly: four years embedded at NextCrew (2022-2024), a workforce management SaaS operating across US compliance jurisdictions where the platform layer - payroll processing, timesheet workflows, billing integrations - had to be reliable and invisible so the product surface could focus on experience. 2.5x sales growth. At Bidmii (2020-2022), marketplace payments ran across a two-sided platform where users had to trust the financial infrastructure completely even though the product was early-stage. $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users.
The gap: no PM title. The same honest acknowledgment I'd make for any PM role. The systems thinking, stakeholder navigation, and outcome ownership are there from seven years of embedded design partnerships - the formal title isn't yet.
Two things I'd want to understand: how does the platform team manage the tension between moving quickly on new market launches and maintaining reliability on the infrastructure existing users depend on? And where does the biggest user friction currently sit in the payment and conversion flow - is it the currency conversion step, the settlement timing, or something else?
Looking forward to connecting.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi eAgronom team,
Farmers trust their instincts for weather and soil. They don't want to trust software - they want software that does exactly what it says and gets out of the way. The carbon data collection problem at the heart of eAgronom's mission is one I've worked on in different forms for seven years: design for a user who knows their domain better than any designer ever will, has real financial stakes attached to what they enter, and no patience for tools that make their work harder than it needs to be.
The most direct parallel: four years at NextCrew (2022-2024), a workforce management SaaS where users were staffing coordinators managing compliance-heavy workflows with real payroll consequences. A confusing field or an ambiguous confirmation wasn't a UX issue - it was a financial error. I also did UX work on the Estonian gymnasium student exam system (via UX Estonia) - an interface where users were under stress with high-stakes outcomes attached to every interaction. Both required the same discipline as carbon reporting: make data entry manageable, confirmation clear, and error recovery obvious to someone who doesn't have time to figure out the software.
No agtech or farming case studies in my portfolio - I won't paper over that gap. The data collection challenge translates; the domain doesn't yet. The question is whether the transferable skill closes the domain distance within the first few months.
Two things I'd genuinely want to understand: where does the biggest friction sit for a farmer going through their first carbon data cycle - is it the terminology, the input structure, or the uncertainty about whether they got it right? And how does eAgronom handle the difference between a farm manager who's tech-comfortable and an older operator who's been running the farm for 30 years with minimal software in their workflow?
Looking forward to connecting.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Wrike Analytics team,
Work management platforms have an analytics paradox: the more data they surface, the less any individual data point means. When every project has a dashboard, the dashboard stops being a signal and starts being the default. The question Wrike's analytics product needs to answer isn't "what should we measure?" - it's "what measurement actually changes how a team behaves next Monday?" That's the harder problem, and it's where I'd want to focus.
I use work management and reporting tools as someone who's built on top of them and watched where the surfaces break down. The gap between what these tools promise on the reporting side and what a team lead actually needs to make a decision is real and consistent - not because the data isn't there, but because visualization without prioritization just produces more noise. I've built automation layers on top of existing reporting tools specifically because the reporting UI wasn't answering the right question.
The core skill here is information architecture before it's UI work. Seven years building products for SaaS platforms, marketplaces, and technical startups means seven years of turning complex state into something a first-time user can read in under five seconds. How you group, surface, and sequence data determines whether it gets used. At Bidmii (2020-2022), the product complexity was multi-party financial state across homeowners, contractors, and platform. Making that legible without simplifying it into uselessness was the actual design problem. $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users, +52% leads after the redesign.
The AI-powered analytics direction is the part of Wrike's roadmap that interests me most. When AI starts surfacing insights rather than just visualizing what's already there, the whole product shifts: less "what should we build in the reporting UI?" and more "what should the system be learning to notice on behalf of the team?" That's a different kind of brief - and a more interesting one.
Two things I'd want to understand: what does the team currently use as the signal that a reporting feature is actually changing how teams work, versus just being used? And how far along is the AI roadmap - are we talking about AI-generated summaries, or something closer to proactive anomaly detection?
Looking forward to connecting.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Evotym team,
I've had a 3Commas account, traded BTC and altcoins through multiple cycles on Binance, and contributed to the design of an AI trading platform. The product problems in crypto payments aren't abstract to me - I know what bad crypto UX costs from the user side, which is the only honest place to start building for it.
"High-risk transactions" is where the interesting infrastructure problems live. The edge cases that mainstream payment rails don't handle, the compliance complexity that requires actual product thinking rather than just API integration, the trust deficit that every crypto product is either earning or losing with every interaction. That's more interesting than building on solved infrastructure. The experience layer is still largely unbuilt, and that's the gap worth working on.
My background is design, but the work I've actually done is definition, prioritization, and shipping. At NextCrew (2022-2024) I owned the full product design cycle at an AI staffing platform: discovery, scope definition, prototyping, handoff, iteration. 2.5x sales growth over the contract. At Bidmii (2020-2022) I did the same for a marketplace where financial trust between two parties was the core product question. $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users, +52% leads after the redesign. The decision-making work was the same as any product role - the title said designer.
English and Russian in the same job requirements is a specific market signal: EEA operations with Russian-speaking user exposure. Native Russian, fluent English, based in Tallinn - that's not a checkbox, it's context I've lived in for thirty-plus years. The regulatory and cultural complexity of operating between these markets isn't something I'd need time to learn.
Two things I'd genuinely want to understand: where does the product currently see the highest drop-off in the payment flow, and is it trust-driven or clarity-driven? And how is the team thinking about the compliance layer as a product feature rather than a legal obligation - is there appetite to make that visible and reassuring to users, or is the preference to make it invisible?
Looking forward to the next steps.
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
I've done data visualization work inside B2B SaaS products - reporting screens at NextCrew, analytics dashboards for clients - and the problem I notice every time is the same: the person who knows what the data means designs it for themselves. The chart is accurate and technically impressive and useless to the executive who has 40 minutes to make a budget decision based on it. Translating data into decisions is a design problem, not a data problem, and I find it more interesting than decorative visualization work.
Hi INFUSE team,
I've done data visualization work inside B2B SaaS products - reporting screens at NextCrew, analytics dashboards for clients - and the problem I notice every time is the same: the person who built the visualization knows exactly what it means. The chart is accurate and impressive and useless to the CMO who has to make a budget decision based on it in the next 45 minutes. The gap between what the analyst cares about and what the executive can act on is widest in B2B demand generation content - and INFUSE is sitting directly in that gap. I find that translation problem genuinely interesting to design for.
The B2B graphic design portfolio is direct. Seven years, 120+ projects: brand systems, marketing assets, sales collateral for SaaS and service businesses. The Scalenic brand kit (for my own agency), client brand work across Solid Growth, ASET Expert, Hochdruckprofis, multiple SaaS companies. eBooks, case study designs, infographics, report layouts - I've produced all of these for clients who needed their complex B2B content to look credible to a sophisticated buyer audience. Tallinn-based, which your listing specifically mentions as the Eastern Europe remote variant - that's the right geography.
The data visualization specialty is real but comes from a product design context rather than pure data journalism or infographic work. Most of my data visualization has been inside software interfaces (dashboards, reporting, analytics screens), not standalone B2B content assets. If the role is primarily infographic-heavy and report layout design, the portfolio skews slightly differently than product-embedded data visualization. Worth confirming what the daily work actually looks like.
Contract format is fine - I've worked that way for years. The main practical question: what's the rate range and expected weekly hour commitment?
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Finom team,
My clients for seven years have been small business owners - the same people Finom is building for. Not as a persona exercise. As actual founders I've worked with on real business problems. I know what they think about when they're staring at a new banking dashboard at 11pm wondering if the invoicing will sync. I know what makes them close the tab and what makes them stay.
At Bidmii - a SaaS marketplace where I was sole embedded designer for three years - I owned end-to-end product UX for a platform where trust was the core mechanic: homeowners putting real money into a marketplace with contractors they'd never met. $1M pre-seed raised post-rebrand, 5,700+ users onboarded, +52% leads, -33% bounce rate. That's the structural parallel to Finom: financial trust UX, multi-role platform complexity, full design ownership from research through design system and handoff.
At NextCrew - a Chicago-based staffing SaaS, four years as sole designer - I took the product through a full repositioning from SMB to enterprise. Multi-role compliance workflows, payroll-adjacent UX, operations where one wrong state means someone doesn't get paid. 2.5x sales growth across the contract.
The AI Copilot work specifically interests me. I run Claude in my daily workflow - design decisions, research synthesis, brief writing. I've been thinking about the specific UX patterns where AI assistance earns trust rather than erodes it. For a bookkeeping product the stakes are real: a wrong AI category suggestion and a founder reconciles against bad numbers at year-end. That's a trust-design problem I'd find genuinely engaging to own.
Three things I'd want to understand early: how does the Core Product team coordinate with platform and growth design work? What does AI Copilot feature ownership look like from a design perspective? And is Estonia a supported location for this role - it's not listed explicitly and I'd rather surface that now than two weeks into process.
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations from clients and employers: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Web & Brand Designer | Scalenic
Hi PandaDoc team,
The interesting design problem in a document workflow isn't the document. It's the fifteen seconds before someone clicks sign - on a contract for a deal that matters, in a product that's either building their confidence or quietly eroding it. That's a trust and clarity brief, and it's where I've spent most of my career.
At NextCrew - a Chicago-based staffing SaaS where I was the sole designer for four years - I owned product UX for a multi-role platform: workers, managers, admins, payroll operators. Each user type had different information needs, different permissions, different stakes when something went wrong. Two full product design cycles end-to-end. 2.5x sales growth. The structural challenge in PandaDoc's core product is the same: sender, signer, admin, template editor - same platform, completely different contexts. I've mapped those divergent needs before.
At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was sole embedded designer for three years - I built the design system from scratch while simultaneously redesigning the product running on it. Foundation work, in practice: patterns, states, components that the whole product inherited. That contributed to $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ users onboarded.
One honest question before going further: what's the actual mobile/web split in this role? If it's primarily native mobile design, my portfolio is web-first and that gap is real. If mobile is one surface within a broader foundations mandate, I'm well-positioned. Worth clarifying early.
Remote EU from Tallinn is a direct fit, CET+2.
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Web & Brand Designer | Scalenic
Hi INFINNI team,
Product Design Lead is the role I've been doing without the title for most of my career. Sole designer at two companies over six-year embedded partnerships: own the research, the system, the stakeholder alignment, the developer quality handoff, the design decisions that don't have a clear right answer. The gap between that operational reality and a formal lead role is a title, not a capability jump.
At NextCrew (Chicago SaaS, 2022-2026) I owned all product design as the company repositioned from SMB to enterprise, led two full product cycles end-to-end, drove 2.5x sales growth alongside the team. At Bidmii (Canadian SaaS marketplace, 2019-2022) I took the product and brand from early-stage through $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ active users. In both cases, "lead" was the operational reality: research synthesis, stakeholder alignment, design system evolution, developer quality oversight. No one else was doing it.
The AI tools angle is something I'd bring into the actual work, not just claim in a cover letter. Claude runs in my daily process - research synthesis, decision documentation, brief writing. INFINNI's emphasis on AI productivity is an environment I already operate in.
Creator economy and social media are honest gaps in the portfolio - my work is B2B SaaS, marketplace platforms, and service businesses. If the product vertical maps specifically to that niche, it's worth naming early. If the domain is fluid, the process carries: I've onboarded to new verticals seven times in seven years.
What I'm curious about: what does the product vertical ownership look like concretely at INFINNI? Existing product with a roadmap, new initiative from scratch, or something in between? And what's the design team size I'd be leading?
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Web & Brand Designer | Scalenic
Hi Kraken / Breakout team,
I've been a Kraken user long enough to have a genuine opinion about what the conversion funnel doesn't tell first-time depositors that it should. The opinion is this: you earn trust before you ask for money, not after. Breakout's design challenge is the same problem at higher stakes - someone evaluating whether to trust a prop trading program with their capital and their performance record under real market pressure needs confidence-building that's different from a standard SaaS onboarding. That's a trust design brief, and it's where I've spent most of my career.
The role maps directly. Seven years, 120+ commercial projects: brand systems, conversion-focused web, and the funnel layer that turns traffic into leads. At Bidmii (Canadian marketplace SaaS, 3-year embedded engagement) - +52% leads, -33% bounce rate, $1M pre-seed raise, 5,700+ users. At NT Kaunas (real estate) - 40 qualified leads/month from a redesigned site. At Forest Hotel - 25+ direct bookings/month from a booking-focused site rebuild. The pattern: outcomes measured in conversions, not design awards.
I trade for my own account. Crypto on Kraken, altcoins on Binance, TradingView as my primary charting layer. I know what a potential Breakout trader is thinking when they're deciding whether to trust a new platform with their capital. That's not a persona exercise - it's the decision I've made myself.
The "not here to manage designers" line in the JD is something I notice. The best work I've done has been in environments where design ownership is real and solo. Breakout's full scope - website, conversion flows, ad creatives, email, social, design system, brand governance - is exactly the kind of brief where one person owning the full surface produces better output than five people handing off between lanes.
I run Claude in my daily design workflow. The Nano Banana Pro reference in the tool stack made me look it up. I like what I found - and I appreciate the specificity of the tool list over generic "AI-friendly" language.
One small thing: Anastassia Nilova's profile shows Tallinn School of Management. I've worked in Tallinn for seven years and know the Estonian startup ecosystem well. Small world.
What does the Breakout conversion funnel currently look like in terms of where the biggest drop-off is - top of funnel (awareness), mid-funnel (evaluation), or the evaluation step itself?
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Scaled Agile / piPlanning.io team,
PI Planning is a ceremony - a specific room-based ritual where 50-150 engineers align on what ships in the next quarter. Translating that ritual into software without losing what makes it work (the real-time negotiation, the spatial thinking, the wall of dependencies everyone can see at once) is one of the more interesting enterprise UX problems I've come across.
The work maps directly. At NextCrew (Chicago SaaS, 4-year embedded engagement) I was sole designer through a full repositioning from SMB to enterprise - multi-role platform (workers, managers, admins, payroll operators), two full product cycles end-to-end, 2.5x sales growth. At Bidmii (Canadian marketplace, 3 years) - full design stack from research through design system, $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users. Both B2B web products where a wrong state in the UX had real operational consequences. That's the standard I've been designing to.
The AI capabilities angle specifically interests me. Getting AI assistance right in a planning context requires a precise tone: helpful enough to change the workflow, invisible enough not to break the ritual. A smart suggestion that feels authoritative lands differently than one that feels advisory. I use Claude in my own planning workflow and I've been thinking about what good AI suggestion UX actually looks like when the stakes are a quarterly engineering roadmap.
Small, highly accountable team with end-to-end ownership is the environment I've operated in consistently. Contractor format suits how I work - outcome-focused, scoped to the deliverable.
Based in Tallinn, Estonia - CET+2, EU right to work, no timezone friction for European collaboration.
What's the core design challenge at piPlanning right now - is this primarily the canvas/whiteboard interactions, the AI feature layer, or something in the collaboration model?
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Why are you a great fit for this role?
Seven years building B2B products alongside founders means I own outcomes, not tasks. The closest structural parallel: four years as sole designer at NextCrew, a workforce management SaaS repositioning from SMB to enterprise under real operational pressure - multi-role complex workflows, payroll-adjacent operations where a wrong state has real financial consequences, 2.5x sales growth. I understand the product discipline required when errors aren't just UX issues; they break customer trust at the contract level. I run Claude and other AI tools in my daily workflow and have thought specifically about human-in-the-loop design - where AI automation hands back to a human at the wrong moment is exactly where most AI products fail quietly. I'm not a PM by title. What I have is seven years of product decisions, stakeholder alignment, and outcome ownership at founder-adjacent scale.
What do you imagine are the biggest challenges Unitary faces in the next 12 months?
First: enterprise trust at scale. The "pay only for delivered value" model removes the adoption barrier but sets quality at an unforgiving standard - one bad batch in commercial insurance processing is a trust event, not a bug. Second: focus vs. expansion. Commercial insurance, marketplaces, and healthcare are three completely different process models. The tension between winning deeply in one versus skimming three is a real strategic call the Series A hasn't forced yet. Third: human-in-the-loop calibration. The right AI-to-human handoff point differs per customer, per use case, per error threshold - building that into the product without creating a configuration nightmare is the hardest PM problem in this category. Fourth: quality SLA maintenance as process complexity grows. Simple repetitive tasks are easy to guarantee. The next tier of enterprise demand is structurally harder - the quality promise gets more expensive to keep just as the sales motion depends on it most.
Hi Unitary team,
"Software workers with AI reasoning that complete complex workflows end-to-end" is the clearest description of practical AI automation I've read in a product brief. Most AI companies describe the technology. Unitary describes what the customer gets and what they pay for when they get it. That's a product philosophy, and it tells you everything about what the PM job actually is.
I want to address the gap directly: seven years of product decisions alongside founders, not a PM title on a CV. At NextCrew (Chicago staffing SaaS, 2022-2026) I owned all design through a repositioning from SMB to enterprise, ran two full product cycles, and contributed to 2.5x sales growth working directly with the founding team and VP-level stakeholders. At Bidmii (Canadian marketplace SaaS, 2019-2022) I took the product from prototype to $1M pre-seed and 5,700+ users as the sole embedded designer. In both cases the work was product decisions, stakeholder alignment, and outcome ownership - not execution under someone else's roadmap.
I've shipped products where a wrong workflow state meant someone didn't get paid or a compliance record was wrong. NextCrew's payroll-adjacent operations ran under exactly that standard. I understand what it means to design and manage systems where errors have real operational consequences rather than just UX friction.
I run AI tools daily and have been thinking specifically about the human-in-the-loop calibration problem - where AI automation hands back to a human at the wrong moment is exactly where most AI products fail quietly. That's the most interesting PM problem in Unitary's product surface right now, and it's different per customer, per use case, per error threshold.
Two things I'd want to understand: how does Unitary think about the focus vs. expansion tradeoff across commercial insurance, marketplaces, and healthcare? And how do you handle the cases where the Virtual Agent produces an output the customer disputes - product problem, model problem, or process problem?
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Alex and ClarenAI team,
"Cursor for lawyers" made me immediately understand what WilsonAI is building. That clarity of positioning is rare in legal tech - most products describe what they can do rather than what the lawyer gets. The framing tells me the founders think in terms of the user's mental model, not the technology's capabilities.
I want to be direct about two things before going further.
First: I'm in Tallinn, Estonia. The role says on-site London. That's a real constraint. If there's hybrid flexibility - even majority remote with regular London visits - I'd want to understand it early. If it's genuinely full-time on-site, that changes the conversation.
Second: React/TypeScript is in my toolkit but not my primary skill. Figma to Framer, with full design system documentation and developer handoff, is where I'm strongest. If the role requires daily engineering work at design-engineer level, that gap is real. Worth clarifying what "strong frontend engineering skills" means in practice here.
What I'd bring: seven years of end-to-end product design for B2B SaaS and complex-workflow products. At Bidmii (Canadian marketplace, 3 years as sole designer) - $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users, +52% leads, design system built from scratch. At NextCrew (Chicago staffing SaaS, 4 years) - two full product design cycles through SMB-to-enterprise repositioning, multi-role compliance workflows, 2.5x sales growth. Both information-dense, high-stakes environments where a wrong state in the UX had real consequences.
The founding designer role specifically: the decisions made in the first six months become the product's design language for the next three years. I've operated at that layer before. The weight of it is familiar.
What does the primary interaction model look like in WilsonAI right now - is the main surface a document viewer with AI overlays, a side-by-side comparison, or something else entirely?
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Mindrift team,
Evaluating design quality and explaining why one solution works better than another is what I do inside every client project, every brief, every revision round. It's not a skill I'd develop for this platform - it's the thing I've been doing commercially for seven years across 120+ projects. Mindrift is the first opportunity where that specific capability is the product, not the byproduct.
My background: brand and web design, 7 years, 120+ commercial projects globally. Multi-year embedded design partnerships with North American SaaS companies (Bidmii, NextCrew), plus freelance work across hospitality, real estate, fintech, healthcare, and e-commerce. The range matters here because my quality judgments are cross-vertical - I know what good composition looks like in a SaaS dashboard, a luxury e-commerce product page, a B2B landing page, and a hospitality booking flow. They are different standards.
I work in Figma daily and have used Midjourney, Claude, and Figma AI in my actual design process for over a year. I know the specific failure modes of AI-generated design - the compositions that are technically balanced but visually inert, the type pairings that are defensible but wrong, the layouts that have correct hierarchy but poor visual weight. These are patterns I catch in my own work and in AI-generated output.
The written articulation requirement is something I'd treat as the core of the role, not a secondary task. I write design rationales, positioning documents, and strategic briefs as part of every client engagement. Explaining in specific, learnable terms why a design decision serves or undermines a brief is already a deliverable I produce.
Applying for Brand Designer and Web Designer roles - both are direct matches to my primary portfolio.
Portfolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Tickmill team,
I trade CFDs and crypto for my own account. Which means I have first-hand experience of exactly what bad trading interface design costs in real time - ambiguous confirmation states, order status that reads one way when the market is calm and another way when it isn't, fields that look identical but behave differently under pressure. A CFD platform is one of the few products where the UI has direct fiduciary weight. I know this from both sides of the screen.
Seven years of product design, with multi-year embedded partnerships at NextCrew (workforce management SaaS, 2.5x sales growth over four years) and Bidmii (marketplace SaaS, $1M pre-seed, 5,700+ users). The design discipline in both cases was the same: multi-role platforms where errors had real consequences, state management that couldn't be ambiguous, workflows where the user had to get the right answer - not just a reasonable approximation of it. That transfers directly to trading UI.
Tallinn on-site works well - I am based here and available for the kind of daily collaboration that builds better products faster than async ever does.
Three things I am curious about: what is the primary platform - MetaTrader, a proprietary terminal, or both - and does the designer own the full UI stack or work within an existing system? Where does the biggest UX debt sit right now - is it the execution layer, the account management surface, or something in the onboarding flow? And how does the design team collaborate with compliance on interface changes - is that a blocker or a built-in constraint that the design process has adapted to?
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
Most fintech products solve a vertical problem - banking OR accounting OR invoicing - and then acquire their way into the others. The seams show. Finom is making the harder bet: that all three surfaces can feel like one product designed by one team. I find that specific design challenge more interesting than any of the three verticals alone - and I've spent four years solving the same structural problem at different scale.
Hi Finom team,
Most fintech products solve a vertical problem - banking OR accounting OR invoicing - and then acquire their way into the others. The integration feels like integration because it was. Finom is making the harder bet: that all three surfaces can feel like one product designed by one team, with one coherent mental model for the user who is simultaneously a business owner, an accountant, and the person reconciling transactions at 9pm. That's a more interesting design challenge than any of the three verticals alone.
I've designed for users where workflow complexity isn't optional. At NextCrew - a staffing compliance SaaS where I was the embedded designer for four years - the users were managing multi-role scheduling with payroll consequences attached. A mistake in the workflow wasn't a UX friction point; it was a missed payroll. At Bidmii I owned the full design cycle for a two-sided marketplace with financial transactions running through every interaction. $1M pre-seed raised while I was there, 5,700+ users onboarded. Both projects required the same skill Finom needs: making systems that are genuinely complex feel like a sensible sequence of obvious next steps.
EU remote, Series C, core product - this is one of the better-structured roles I've seen recently. The fit is strong enough that I'd want to move quickly if the conversation goes well.
Three questions before diving in: does Finom treat banking, accounting, and invoicing as shared components under a unified design system, or has product growth created real divergence between the surfaces? What does onboarding look like for a new solo founder who has never used accounting software? And where does the biggest UX debt sit in the core product right now?
Selected project outcomes and case studies: behance.net/igor_salagin
Client and employer recommendations: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Igor Šalagin
My clients for seven years have been Hostinger's users: founders and small business owners who needed to get online without becoming developers. I know their frustrations in detail - not from a persona document but from real client conversations. The hardest thing about designing for this user isn't simplicity (every builder says simple). It's confidence. There's a real difference between a UI that's technically simple and one that makes a non-technical founder feel capable. The first time that feeling clicks is usually whether someone stays for three years or publishes once and never comes back. That first-session confidence moment is the design problem I'd want to work on.
Hi Hostinger team,
My clients for seven years - over 100 projects for commercial clients - have been Hostinger's users: founders and small business owners who need to get online without becoming developers. I know the friction from the outside - not from a persona, but from real conversations. The hardest thing about designing for this user isn't simplicity (every team says simple). It's confidence. The difference between a UI that's technically simple and one that makes a non-technical founder feel capable is where most products miss. Hostinger's product is often the first time these people experience "I can actually do this." That first session sets whether they stay for three years.
At Bidmii - a SaaS marketplace where I was the sole embedded designer for three years - I owned onboarding UX for a platform where the first fifteen minutes determined whether a user would stay for three years. +52% lift in leads, design system built from scratch, $1M pre-seed raise, 5,700+ users onboarded. Bidmii case study on Behance.
One question: Hostinger serves two user modes that feel like they're in tension - the person who publishes once and never comes back, and the person who keeps iterating and wants to go deeper. When a product decision has to favour one over the other, where does the team currently land? And is that a settled conviction or still an active debate?
Project case studies and outcomes: behance.net/igor_salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Kris and the RallyFeed team,
Kris - a live event feed that follows the timing of a rally, not the algorithm, is one of those product decisions that sounds obvious in hindsight and is actually very hard to commit to. Most sports apps optimise for retention loops; RallyFeed optimises for the sport. That tells me something about the team behind it. I’d love to help build what comes next.
I've spent most of my career as the sole embedded designer inside startups - seven years and over 100 projects finished and launched for commercial clients - which means I know what it looks like when a small team makes a deliberate product decision and sticks to it. The closest parallel in my own work is Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole designer for three years, building the full product and design system from scratch, from before the first user through a $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ users onboarded. Across seven years I've finished and launched over 100 projects for commercial clients. Full case study on Behance.
With a team of three, you don't need someone who waits for a detailed brief or stops at wireframes. You need someone who can own the scope end-to-end - from early product decisions through production-ready components - and move fast when things are still in flux. That's the environment I've worked in for most of my career.
What actually draws me here: a product built for people who care deeply about a specific thing. That's a different design brief from a general sports app - it rewards specificity, respects the user's expertise, and punishes anything that feels generic or undercooked. Products built for deeply-caring audiences require a kind of attentiveness that I find genuinely more interesting than designing for the mass market. I want to work somewhere that holds that standard as the baseline, not the ambition.
Resume is attached. Verified contract history and recommendations on my LinkedIn profile.
One question I keep coming back to: as RallyFeed grows, where does the spectator layer sit relative to the timing core? I'm curious whether the product direction is to deepen coverage of the current stages - more data, more detail for the committed fan - or to widen toward a broader motorsport audience. That answer changes what the design needs to do quite a lot.
I'd be glad to show you my process work - not just the finished cases but the rounds of thinking that got there. If a test brief is a useful way to see how I work, I'm genuinely happy with that too.
Hi Ibrahim and the Fasset team,
I trade crypto for my own account - Bitcoin and altcoins, across Binance and other exchanges, with TradingView as my primary charting layer. I've also spent time helping a friend design and build an AI (AI)-based trading platform from scratch. So I know the real friction in this space: not "can I place this trade" but "am I making the right call, at the right moment, with the right information on screen." Most crypto platforms are built for users who are already confident. Fasset is trying to make that confidence accessible to people who aren't there yet. That's a harder problem and a more meaningful one. I want to help solve it.
My design background covers seven years and over 100 projects for commercial clients, including complex platforms. At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole designer for three years - I owned the full UX stack from research through design system and development handoff, across a product that went from prototype to $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ active users. Case study on Behance. +52% leads, -33% bounce rate - and the same design system covered the full product and public site. These aren't crypto projects, but the discipline maps: simplify without losing fidelity, design for users with real stakes.
One thing I'd genuinely be curious to hear: what has research with Fasset's actual users told you that surprised the team? My assumption is that users in emerging markets have been burned by financial products that looked legitimate before - which means the usual fintech trust signals don't land the same way. But I'm curious where the data has actually challenged those assumptions.
This posting is fresh - I'm applying early on purpose.
Project case studies and outcomes: behance.net/igor_salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi George and the Maze team,
I've been running user research for seven years - interviews, usability tests, A/B testing - and the gap between "research that influences decisions" and "research that gets filed away" usually comes down to how fast you can produce it. Maze is trying to close that gap. That's a product philosophy I believe in, and a harder design problem than it looks: you're designing for researchers who are themselves experts in user behaviour. I'd love to help solve that from the inside.
My background here is direct: seven years of product design and over 100 projects launched for commercial clients, built around user research as the starting point, not the validation step. At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole designer for three years - I ran qualitative user interviews, analysed drop-off patterns, and used heatmaps and session recordings alongside structured usability tests to identify where the product broke down. The design followed the research, not the other way around. The product went from early prototype to $1M pre-seed raise with 5,700+ active users. Bidmii case study on Behance.
Working at Maze would put me on the tool side of a practice I've lived in for seven years. I'd bring a user who genuinely runs research, not just someone who's heard of it.
One thing I'd want to understand better: the speed philosophy is clear as a direction, but where does Maze draw the line internally between "fast enough to act on" and "so fast the signal quality suffers"? That tension must show up somewhere in product decisions. I'm curious how the team navigates it.
Project case studies and outcomes: behance.net/igor_salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi 3Commas team,
I trade crypto for my own account and spent a year helping build an AI (AI)-based trading platform from scratch. So I understand 3Commas' core UX problem from the inside: automated trading tools live and die on confidence - the user's confidence that the bot is doing what they think it's doing, and their willingness to let it keep running when a position goes sideways. Most of that confidence is designed into the UX, not the algorithm. The alert design, the position display, the manual override flow - those are trust decisions. QuantPilot adds an explainability layer on top of all that. That's the problem I want to work on.
My design background covers seven years and over 100 projects for commercial clients, including complex platforms where information density had to coexist with usability under pressure. At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole designer for three years - I owned the full UX stack from research to design system through a $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ active users. Case study on Behance. The pattern is the same: multi-role, state-heavy product, where the UX either builds trust fast or loses it.
Dashboard UX for trading automation is uniquely hard - your users range from set-and-forget to power users watching live exposure across five exchanges. That range doesn't simplify. It has to be designed for.
One question on QuantPilot specifically: how much of the AI's reasoning does the team currently think should be surfaced to the user? The design direction could go toward full transparency - showing the why behind every signal - or toward confidence without complexity, where the AI just acts and you trust it. That's a genuinely unsolved question, and I'd like to understand where 3Commas sits on it.
Note: this listing appears to be approximately one month old - applying with the assumption it's still open. Please disregard if the position has been filled.
Resume is attached. Case studies and client recommendations: behance.net/igor_salagin · LinkedIn
Q: Do you have experience designing trading tools? Please elaborate if yes.
Yes. I trade crypto for my own account - Bitcoin and altcoins, across Binance and other exchanges, using TradingView as my primary charting and signal layer. I used 3Commas personally about five years ago, specifically for automating stop-loss and take-profit settings across positions. I know the product from the inside.
Beyond personal use, I contributed to designing an AI-based crypto trading platform from scratch over the past year - including position display, signal feeds, and the manual override flow. The core design challenge was the same one 3Commas faces: helping a user trust an automated system enough to let it run, while giving them enough visibility that they don't feel compelled to constantly intervene.
The UX failures I've observed consistently in trading tools: alert formats that drain confidence rather than build it, position displays that require too much cognitive assembly under pressure, and override flows that punish the user for taking manual control. I've thought about these from both sides - as a user and as the designer.
I run Linux in my development environment by choice - JetBrains Mono is the default in my own brand kit, my terminal is the center of my workflow, and I've been that kind of user for years. I know what it feels like when a Linux product respects the user who chose it deliberately. I also know when it doesn't. I'd be designing for someone whose preferences I share, which is a different starting point from a portfolio that just happens to look technical.
Hi Canonical team,
I run Linux in my development environment - not because it's easier, but because it's right for the work. That's the Ubuntu user in a sentence: someone who made a deliberate choice and expects the product to respect it. Designing for that user is different from designing for a captive audience. They'll leave if you get in their way, and they'll be remarkably loyal if you treat them as intelligent. That's a design constraint I find genuinely motivating.
My design work leans toward precision: minimal typography stacks (JetBrains Mono is a professional default in my own brand kit), tight spacing hierarchies, and system-thinking where every element earns its place. I've designed for developer-facing and technically sophisticated products - Bidmii, AtlasLeap, ArcPilot, Deeplify - where the interface has to be trustworthy before it's beautiful. Bidmii case study on Behance.
I've worked fully remotely since 2018 - all client delivery, coordination, and handoff. Time zone: CET+1 (Tallinn, Estonia), squarely in Canonical's European footprint.
Project case studies and outcomes: behance.net/igor_salagin
Igor Šalagin
Hi Bolt team,
Bolt added food, groceries, and scooters to DriverX - which means a driver's home screen now has to handle multiple offer types with completely different pickup and delivery flows. Cohering that into one mental model, without a redesign every time a new vertical launches, is a systems design problem. DriverX is where the whole service gets made. It's the side of the platform I'd want to work on.
I've spent most of my career as the sole embedded designer inside startups - seven years and over 100 projects finished and launched for commercial clients - which means I know what it looks like to own a product surface end-to-end without a team behind you. The closest parallel is Bidmii, a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole designer for three years, building a multi-role product from scratch: bid flows, project states, notifications, customer and provider views, all state-dependent. We shipped from zero to a $1M pre-seed raise and 5,700+ active users. Full case study on Behance.
The DriverX problem is structurally the same: a finite set of states (idle, dispatched, arriving, in-trip, completing, multi-offer) that each require different information hierarchies, with a user whose attention is under real constraint. That's not a visual problem - it's a systems and information architecture problem. I've been doing that kind of work at product scale.
I live in Tallinn, use Bolt regularly, and notice the driver side more than the rider side. That alone tells me where my attention would go if I joined this team.
Note: I applied separately for the Product Designer, Web role at Bolt (June 23). DriverX is the role I'm more drawn to.
Resume is attached. Case studies and client recommendations: behance.net/igor_salagin · LinkedIn
Hi ESTO AS team,
BNPL products usually win by making commitment feel small - friction down, clarity optional. ESTO made the opposite bet: design for understanding at the point of decision. That philosophy has to live at the interface level, or it's just copy on a landing page. It caught my attention because it's genuinely harder to build, and more interesting to work on. I want to help make sure that conviction shows up in every screen.
My background is in complex B2B platforms and conversion-focused product design. At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole embedded designer for three years - the work covered user research, multi-role state flows, prototyping, design system ownership, and handoff specs that developers used without back-and-forth. The product assisted the founding team through a $1M pre-seed raise with 5,700+ users onboarded. See the Bidmii case study on Behance.
On the data side: I've used quantitative analytics (drop-off rates, session heatmaps, A/B test results) alongside user interviews and usability testing to identify where interfaces break down. At Impact Land Services, identifying that 60% of visitors were leaving at the third page - a services page with no contact path - led to a redirect that produced a 70% lift in local inquiries. The research came first; the redesign was the consequence.
The fintech domain is one I'm stepping into, not one I've lived in. The gap is honest. But the design discipline that makes financial products clear, trustworthy, and usable is the same discipline I've been applying across seven years of client work - over 100 projects finished and launched for commercial clients.
Resume attached. Contract history and recommendations on my LinkedIn profile.
Happy to show you process work - the thinking behind the numbers, not just the finished screens.
Igor Šalagin
Hi Bolt team,
Bolt's visual language works coherently across taxi, food, and scooters - three product surfaces that have almost nothing in common. Most super-apps fragment. Yours mostly doesn't, and keeping it that way at 200 million riders is a harder design problem than building the original brand. That's the job I want to work on.
Most of my portfolio is on the product and conversion side, but the skill underneath it is the same: building visual languages that communicate clearly under constraint and scale into reusable components. Seven years of client work, over 100 projects for commercial clients. Levendi is the closest example - a luxury jewelry brand founded in 1967 where the challenge was modernising the visual system without erasing the heritage weight. See the Levendi case study on Behance. On the storytelling side, Forest Hotel in Lithuania had to hold visually across booking flow, campaign imagery, and editorial content simultaneously - different formats, one coherent feel.
Tallinn is home since the early Bolt days. I've been using the product across most of its surfaces since then - ride-hailing, food, scooters, market. As a designer who pays close attention to visual systems, I can tell you exactly where the experience holds and where it starts to fragment. That's the perspective this role needs from someone working on it from the inside, not evaluating it from outside.
One honest gap: I don't have a heavy motion design background and won't claim one. What I'm strong on is visual systems thinking, brand consistency across digital touchpoints, and in-product assets that feel native to the experience rather than imported from a marketing toolkit.
Resume is attached. Contract history and recommendations on my LinkedIn profile.
If you're seeing what I'm seeing here, let's talk.
Igor Šalagin
Tere IT Koolitus meeskond,
Teie UX/UI koolitusel on mentorprogramm - see on täpselt see formaat, milles olen viimased 4 aastat töötanud, ja formaat, milles olen näinud, et inimesed päriselt õpivad.
UX Estonia programmi raames olen juhendanud 35 inimest - algajaid ja suunamuutjaid - koostöös Eesti Töötukassaga. Paljud on pärast programmi leidnud töö Eesti idufirmades ja välismaal, alustanud vabakutselisena või sulgenud esimesed kliendiprojektid. Õpetasin UX- ja veebidisaini, disainitarkvara (Figma) tööriistu, kasutajauuringut, brändistrateegiat, ärianalüüsi, A/B testimist ja tehisintellekti (AI) kasutamist disainiprotsessis.
Paralleelselt olen 7 aastat aktiivne praktik. Mõned näited, mida klassiruumi sisse toon:
KV24.ee kinnisvaraportaali ümberdisain - suure kasutajabaasiega Eesti toote kasutajakogemuse kaasajastamine reaalse ärisurvega.
Eesti kooliõpilaste eksamisüsteemi UX-ümberdisain ja kasutatavuse testimine koostöös UX Estoniaga - kasutajatestid, kus lõppkasutaja on eksamistressiga kooliõpilane.
Rahvusvahelised projektid, kus disain pidi toetama ärilist tulemust: Bidmii (Kanada idufirma, kaasas $1 miljonit investeeringut, 5700+ kasutajat) ja NT Kaunas (Leedu kinnisvarafirma, ~40 uut päringut kuus veebilehelt).
CV on lisatud manuses.
Projektide juhtumiuuringud ja portfoolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Klientide ja tööandjate soovitused: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Millised teemad või kursuse mahud teile praegu kõige paremini sobivad? Olen paindlik nii formaadi, mahu kui aja osas.
Tänan.
Teie vastust soojalt ootama jäädes,
Igor Šalagin
Hi Bolt team,
I've been a Bolt user in Tallinn long enough to have watched the product evolve from a local taxi app to a mobility ecosystem covering scooters, food delivery, and car rentals across 45 countries. What I notice - because I do this for a living - is that a company's public web rarely catches up with how much the product has grown. Bolt's is better than most. I think there's a sharper version.
The Senior Product Designer, Public Web role is exactly that problem: keeping the acquisition surface effective, data-informed, and coherent as the product keeps expanding. My portfolio is built around precisely this. At Bidmii - a Canadian SaaS marketplace where I was the sole embedded designer for three years - a website redesign drove a 52% lift in leads and a 33% drop in bounce rate. Not through visual polish, but through getting the flow right: the right message in the right hierarchy for where the user was in the funnel. I assisted the founding team through a $1M pre-seed raise with web presence and supporting materials. See the Bidmii case study on Behance.
The design systems side matters here too. Keeping acquisition pages, campaign surfaces, and feature showcases consistent when a brand is moving fast is a systems problem as much as a design one. I've built design systems from scratch and documented them well enough that engineers don't need to guess during handoff.
Honest about the freelance-to-in-house shift: what I actually want is the feedback loop. On a freelance project, you hand off the site and see the first month's numbers if you're lucky. At Bolt's scale, the data comes back in days. I want to be the person still in the building when it does.
Resume is attached. Verified contract history and recommendations on my LinkedIn profile.
Happy to jump on a call.
Igor Šalagin
Tere Kunstigümnaasiumi meeskond,
Just nägin, et teie mentorprogramm võitis Tallinna Haridusameti parima personaliprojekti tiitli 2020. aastal. Kool, mis investeerib uue töötaja sisseelamisse struktureeritult, usaldab ka uut töötajat struktureeritult. Minu teekond on natuke vastupidine: pikk praktikakogemus, esimene kord formaalses klassiruumis. See kombinatsioon minu arust võiks töötada just seal, kus institutsioon teab, kuidas toetada.
Teie praktikapartnerite seas on kommunikatsiooni, psühholoogia ja kunstiteraapia tudengeid - mitte ainult hariduse eriala üliõpilasi. Minu taust - 7 aastat disainipraktikat, 3 aastat UX Estonia's juhendamist - on täpselt see liik erinevat tausta, millele teie kool näib avatud olevat.
UX Estonia programmi raames olen 3 aastat juhendanud algajaid ja keskastme disainereid - kokku 35 inimest, koostöös Eesti Töötukassaga. Tudengid on leidnud töökoha idufirmades Eestis ja välismaal, alustanud vabakutselist tööd või sulgenud päris kliendiprojekte. Õpetasin disainialust, brändistrateegiat, UX- ja veebidisaini, kasutajauuringut, A/B testimist, ärianalüüsi ja tehisintellekti (AI) kasutamist disainiprotsessis.
Üks koostöö UX Estoniaga läks teile päris lähedale: osalesin Eesti kooliõpilaste eksamisüsteemi UX-ümberdisainis ja kasutatavuse testimises. See projekt tõi kokku disainimõtlemise ja avaliku teenuse - ning mäletan selgelt, kui palju tõi välja see, et lõppkasutaja on kooliõpilane, kellel on eksamipäeval niigi palju pinget.
Lisaks juhendamisele olen 7 aastaga lõpetanud ja käivitanud üle 100 projekti kommertsklientidele, sealhulgas KV24.ee kinnisvaraportaali ümberdisain.
Formaalset pedagoogilist kõrgharidust mul ei ole - seda kindlasti ei varjaks. Aga saaksin pakkuda palju reaalse turu kogemust õpilastele, samuti mulle lihtsalt meeldib uusi teadmisi inimesele jagada.
CV on lisatud manuses.
Projektide juhtumiuuringud ja portfoolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Klientide ja tööandjate soovitused: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Kas saaksite rääkida, milline on teie praktika- ja koolitustundide täpne formaat ja alguskuupäev?
Tänan.
Teie vastust soojalt ootama jäädes,
Igor Šalagin
Tere Merilin ja Telia meeskond,
Märkasin, et Telia on nimetatud Top Employer 2025 sertifikaadiga - seda ei saa lihtsalt osta. Minu jaoks tähendab see, et tootetiimis on inimesed, kellele kvaliteet on sisemiselt oluline, mitte ainult brändistrateegias.
Olen ise küberturbetoote ostja olnud, kes ei teadnud täpselt, mida ostab. Ja just see hetk - kui ei mõista, mida klõpsad "osta" - on disainiprobleem, mitte müügiprobleem. Internetiteenuste ja küberturbe puhul on see lõhe alati kohal. Seda hoida nähtamatuna kasutajale on täpselt see töö, mis mind huvitab.
Olen 7 aastat töötanud vabakutselise UX/UI ja tootedisainerina - KV24.ee kinnisvaraportaali ümberdisainimisest Kanada SaaS-i idufirmani, kus olin ainsaks disaineriks kolm aastat ning kus aidanud asutajate meeskonnal koguda 1 miljon dollarit idufirma rahastust. Kõikidel projektidel on olnud ühine joon: kasutajauuring annab suuna, disain on selle elluviimine, äritulemus on mõõt. Siin on sellekohane juhtumiuuring Behance'is.
Lisaks kliendiprojektidele olen 3 aastat juhendanud UX Estonia programmi raames - kokku 35 inimest. Mitmed neist on leidnud töökoha idufirmades Eestis ja välismaal. Ka see on UX töö: selgitada keerulisi otsuseid nii, et need saavad arusaadavaks. Telia tootedisainer vajab sama oskust - ainult et sihtrühmaks on kasutaja, mitte tudeng.
Emakeel on vene keel; eesti keel on kõrgtasemel igapäevane töökeel, inglise keel samuti. Figma, Lookback, kasutajaintervjuud, kvantitatiivsed ja kvalitatiivsed meetodid - kõik kasutuses olnud.
CV on lisatud. Projektide juhtumiuuringud ja tulemused: behance.net/igor_salagin
Näitan teile hea meelega oma disainiprotsessi ja olen valmis panustama oma energia teie meeskonna protsesside muutmisesse - sujuvamaks ja produktiivsemaks.
Igor Šalagin
Tere Eesti Disainikeskuse meeskond,
Eesti Disainikeskus toob koolitustesse ja meistriklassidesse praktikuid - seda mudelit mõistan hästi, sest see on ainuke viis, mis töötab. Kirjutan, et küsida, kas teie 2026. aasta programmidesse on ruumi veel ühele koolitajale.
Viimased 4 aastat olen juhendanud disainereid UX Estonia programmi raames - kokku 35 inimest, koostöös Eesti Töötukassaga. Paljud leiavad pärast programmi töö - see on mõõdik, mis loeb. Õpetasin brändi, veebidisaini, kasutajauuringut, ärianalüüsi, A/B testimist ja tehisintellekti (AI) kasutamist disainiprotsessis.
Paralleelselt olen 7 aastat töötanud aktiivse rahvusvahelise praktikuna:
KV24.ee kinnisvaraportaali ümberdisain - Eesti üks külastatumaid portaale, kasutajakogemuse kaasajastamine.
Eesti kooliõpilaste eksamisüsteemi UX-ümberdisain ja kasutatavuse testimine koostöös UX Estoniaga.
Rahvusvahelised UX/UI projektid: Bidmii (Kanada idufirma, kaasas $1 miljonit investeeringut) ja NT Kaunas (Leedu kinnisvarafirma, ~40 uut päringut kuus veebilehelt).
2026. aastal oleks minu suurim lisaväärtus tõenäoliselt tehisintellekti (AI) kasutamine disainiprotsessis - see valdkond areneb nii kiiresti, et eelmise aasta materjal on juba aegunud. Olen seda aktiivselt integreerinud nii oma töövooga kui ka juhendamises.
CV on lisatud manuses.
Projektide juhtumiuuringud ja portfoolio: behance.net/igor_salagin
Klientide ja tööandjate soovitused: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Millised teemad teie 2026. aasta programmidesse kõige paremini sobiksid? Võin soovi korral saata ka lühikese teemaettekande.
Tänan.
Teie vastust soojalt ootama jäädes,
Igor Šalagin
Tere Vassili ja Kodality meeskond,
Vaadates Kodality tootevaliku kirjeldust, märkan kohe erinevuse tüüpilisest IT-firmast: tervishoiu infosüsteemid, e-retseptid, FHIR-põhine infrastruktuur - tarkvara, millest sõltuvad arstid, ametnikud ja patsiendid igapäevaselt. Seal pole ruumi mitmetimõistetavale UX-ile - segadus pole pelgalt kasutatavuse probleem, see on päris tagajärgedega asi. See vastutuse tase on täpselt see, mida otsin.
Tervishoiu projekte minu portfellis ei ole - aga toon kogemust keerukate B2B platvormide disainiga, kus kasutajateekond ei ole sirgjooneline: mitme rolliga kasutajad, pikad töövood, äriloogika, mis peab disainis täpselt kajastuma. Erand on avaliku sektori töö: Eesti kooliõpilaste eksamisüsteemi ümberdisain - riiklik taristu, kus UX ebaõnnestumine pole pelgalt kasutajate frustratsioon, vaid päris tagajärgedega probleem. Paralleelselt lõpetan praegu MedSynaptic - meditsiinilise platvormi - veebisaidi ümberdisainimist, mis kinnitab, et minu huvi tervishoiuvaldkonna vastu pole teoreetiline. See on sama mõtteviis, mida Kodality vajab tervishoiusüsteemide juures. NT Kaunase kinnisvaraplatvormil lõime UX-strateegia ja kogu disaini nullist - tulemus oli 40+ kvalifitseeritud päringut kuus. Siin on sellekohane juhtumiuuring Behance'is. Sektori saab õppida; platvormi keerukuse mõistmist mitte.
Emakeel on vene keel; eesti keel on kõrgtasemel töökeel - kasutan seda igapäevaselt nii kirjalikus kui suulises kontekstis. Inglise keel on samuti igapäevane töökeel. Olen harjunud töötama arendajatega varakult - mitte ainult lõplikke disaine üle andma, vaid osalema otsustes, mis mõjutavad teostust.
Kandideerin, sest tahan töötada toote kallal pikaajaliselt - aga mitte ainult sel põhjusel. Kodality ehitab süsteeme, millest sõltuvad arstid päriselt. See ei ole startup-eksperiment, kus UX on järelmõte - siin on halb kasutajaliidesega lahendus päris hinnaga. See vastutuse tase muudab ka disaineri töö teistsuguseks: täpsemaks, läbimõeldumaks, ja ausalt öeldes huvitavamaks.
Üks küsimus, mis tekkis töökuulutust lugedes: FHIR-põhiste süsteemide UX-i puhul - kas Kodality disain töötab paralleelselt olemasolevate tervishoiusüsteemidega, mida kasutajad juba tunnevad, või on eesmärk need täielikult asendada? See mõjutab oluliselt disainiotsuste lähtekohta ja seda, mida kasutaja peab iga ekraani peal veel valdama.
CV on kirjale lisatud. Vaata minu LinkedIn profiili kinnitatud soovituste ja pikaajaliste lepingute ülevaate jaoks.
Näitan hea meelega oma protsessitööd - mitte ainult valmis disaine, vaid ka mõtlemist, mis nendeni viis. Kui on kasulik vaadata konkreetset ülesannet, olen selleks valmis.
Igor Šalagin
Tere Tallinna Rahvaülikooli meeskond,
Teie "Tule koolitajaks" lehekülg tabab täpselt seda, mida otsin: täiskasvanud õppijad, paindlik formaat, teemad, mida saan ise sügavalt. Kirjutan, et küsida, kas IT ja digiskillide koolitajana oleks minul koht teie programmides.
Viimased 4 aastat olen juhendanud disainereid UX Estonia programmi raames - kokku 35 inimest, koostöös Eesti Töötukassaga. Paljud on pärast programmi leidnud töökoha Eesti idufirmades ja välismaal, alustanud vabakutselist tööd või sulgenud esimesed kliendiprojektid. Õpetasin UX- ja veebidisaini, disainitarkvara (Figma) tööriistu, kasutajauuringut, brändistrateegiat, A/B testimist ja tehisintellekti (AI) kasutamist disainis.
Paralleelselt olen 7 aastat töötanud aktiivse praktikuna. Mõned näited, mis annavad aimu, millest räägin:
KV24.ee kinnisvaraportaali ümberdisain - Eesti üks külastatumaid portaale, kasutajakogemuse kaasajastamine reaalse ärisurvega.
Eesti kooliõpilaste eksamisüsteemi UX-ümberdisain ja kasutatavuse testimine koostöös UX Estoniaga - lõppkasutaja on kooliõpilane, kellel on eksamipäeval niigi palju pinget.
Rahvusvahelised projektid: Bidmii (Kanada idufirma, kaasas $1 miljonit investeeringut, 5700+ kasutajat) ja NT Kaunas (Leedu kinnisvarafirma, ~40 uut päringut kuus veebilehelt).
Saan pakkuda koolitust sellistes teemades nagu: disainitarkvara (Figma) põhitõed ja edasijõudnud kasutus, veebilehe ülesehituse loogika, kasutajakogemuse disain algajatele, brändi visuaalide loomine, AI visuaalid töös ning veebidisaini alused mittetehnilistele töötajatele.
CV on lisatud manuses.
Projektide juhtumiuuringud ja tööde galerii: behance.net/igor_salagin
Klientide ja tööandjate soovitused: linkedin.com/in/igor-salagin
Millised teemad või formaadid teie programmides praegu kõige rohkem vajadust on? Olen paindlik nii mahu, aja kui koolituse formaadi osas.
Tänan.
Teie vastust soojalt ootama jäädes,
Igor Šalagin