Mollybet Gen Z: Two Concepts, One Product

This article is part of the Flatstudio × Mollybet case study. It is for product teams and designers building complex financial or iGaming products who want to understand how to adapt them for a new audience without losing functionality. The main article in the series is available here.

How the Lack of a Brand Book Forced Us to Do Twice the Work — and Why It Was the Right Decision

The wireframes were approved. The scope was clear. We had to build a design concept for one of the most technical betting platforms on the market. There was only one problem: the project had no brand book. No personas. Only comments from Gabriel and James that sounded like this: “We want to attract a younger audience.” In design, there are two ways to respond to a request like this.

The first is to do exactly what the client asks and hope that “younger audience” and “Gen Z” mean the same thing. The second is to accept that these are two different things — and show both options. We chose the second.

Why We Created Two Concepts Instead of One

As we moved from wireframes to the design concept, it became clear that there was no shared understanding of the audience. The client had a very clear technical vision of the product. But the question of “who is this for?” was still unclear. Instead of guessing, we proposed two directions in parallel.

The first was a traditional but improved version: the same trading terminal with a refreshed visual language, better hierarchy, and a more modern look. This became the main product that went into production.

The second was the Gen Z concept. A separate direction with its own logic, designed for users who grew up with Robinhood, Discord, and TikTok — and who have completely different expectations of how a financial tool should look and feel.

What Gen Z Actually Wants from a Betting Terminal

Gen Z is not against dense data. They are against ugly dense data. That is the key difference. An older professional trader looks at a Bloomberg terminal and focuses only on function. Design is not part of the evaluation.

Gen Z sees the same terminal and immediately notices a design that looks outdated. That instantly makes the product feel more complicated, less interesting, and not worth the effort. Their trust works differently: if a product looks outdated, it feels unreliable and difficult to use.

At the same time, this audience still wants a lot of information on one screen. They are used to split screens, multitasking, and seeing everything at once. But the interface needs breathing room between data blocks. Every element should look intentionally designed — not just placed wherever there was space left.

Giving Data Room to Breathe: Spacing as a Design Decision

The biggest changes in the Gen Z concept were whitespace, rounded shapes, and clearer information grouping.

In the main product, data density is an advantage. Traders want to see as much information as possible on one screen. In the Gen Z version, we intentionally added more spacing between table rows, larger gaps between sections, and a lighter visual rhythm. The amount of information stayed the same — but the feeling of using it changed completely.

The color system introduced a bright green accent and a richer black for dark mode. In this context, green naturally communicates activity and growth, which fits a financial product perfectly. The split view in the sportsbook gave users what they are already used to: two information flows side by side without switching tabs. This worked not only on desktop, but also on mobile.

Match statistics and betting markets. Price history and event lists. Everything was available in one swipe or click. We had previously tested similar ideas on PariMatch and several other products developed together with our partners.

Animation as Part of the Product

In the main product, animation was functional: highlighting cells when odds changed, color updates for better prices, minimal motion focused on information.

In the Gen Z concept, we introduced animation as both UX and visual identity. To attract user attention, bright colors and large fonts are not enough. You need movement and a living interface that keeps the eye engaged. Hover states had stronger visual reactions. Transitions between sections created a sense of motion. Live event indicators pulsed instead of simply glowing.

None of these animations interrupted functionality. But every interaction communicated the same message: this product is alive, modern, and designed for the way people interact with digital interfaces today.

What Happened to the Concept

The Gen Z direction started as an alternative inside the same project. After both concepts were presented, the Mollybet team received more than just a design. They received a strategic decision: which product to build now, and which one to keep as part of the roadmap.

The main platform went into production and became the live product used today. The Gen Z concept was handed over to the client team as a ready-to-use foundation — including components, tokens, and design logic — for future development.

The Main Lesson

If a project has no brand book or personas, that is not a reason to guess. It is a reason to create multiple versions and show the difference. Clients often do not fully understand what they want until they can compare alternatives side by side.

A lack of documentation does not mean a lack of direction. It means the direction still needs to be visualized first — and only then discussed.

‍

If you are building a product with strong technical depth but no clear visual direction, Flatstudio’s Product Audit & Discovery process starts exactly there.

We identify where the product and audience no longer match — and propose concrete solutions, not just recommendations.

Other articles in this series:

→ 981 Components, 17 Months, One Trading Terminal

→ Why Your Betslip Is Wrong: UX of a Trading Terminal

→ How We Redesigned the Mollybet Marketing Website