‹ Back

VIRGO

Brand architecture for a company with one designer

Virgo.co after the revamp — the Bridging Web3 and Beyond homepage, with the Wallet and Payments sub-brand cards
Virgo.co — the brand menu, sub-brands sorted into global and local across Wallet, Payments, Exchange, Institutional Trading and Asset Management
Virgo.co on mobile — the Web3-since-2018 story, a company timeline and the mission section, all on the revamped system

I joined as Virgo's only designer. The brand had been built for a retail crypto audience — the visual language of Web3 a decade ago — and the company it now belonged to was selling to corporate clients and institutional investors. The brief that followed wasn't a refresh. It was a repositioning that the design had to carry.

Fig. 01 / System · Old → New
Virgo — the old VirgoCX system: a purple-led palette on a light theme, set in Ubuntu and Matter
Virgo — the revamped system: a softer purple on a dark theme, set in Red Hat Display and Red Hat Text
Same mark, two systems — the palette and type before and after the reposition.

The rebrand moved the whole system toward restraint: plainer typography, less motion, a narrower palette, fewer gestures toward the category. Some of that reads as cold from the inside, and that reaction is the clearest evidence it worked. A finance team evaluating a payments provider is not looking for personality; they are looking for a company that will still exist next year and behaves like the institutions they already deal with. Warmth is a signal aimed at consumers, and consumers stopped being the audience.

Fig. 02 / Artifact · 2022
Virgo endorsed sub-brand architecture — the shared V signature across Wallet, VirgoPAY, VirgoCX, Virgo Wealth and Virgo Digital Asset Management
A shared parent signature, with a fixed list of what each sub-brand may change.

That new position was also what the sub-brands had to inherit. The company kept launching — payment products, a wallet, a business tier — and each needed to look like Virgo without looking like the same thing. I set the architecture as endorsed sub-brands: a shared parent signature, a fixed set of things each sub-brand may vary, and a fixed set it may not. The rules were the deliverable, not the logos. Logos would have covered the launches that already existed; rules cover the ones nobody had told me about yet.

Fig. 03 / Artifact · 2023
Vivi — Virgo Group's cartoon Shiba mascot, the parent-brand character
Vi-2 — the Wallet V AI-assistant persona, a robot variant of the mascot
Vivi — 3D turnaround views on a light ground
Vi-2 — 3D turnaround views on a dark ground
An asset a non-designer can use without getting it wrong — one character, extended into a sub-brand persona.

The mascot came out of the same need. A mascot gives a brand something a non-designer can actually use — hand someone a character and they will get more of it right than if you hand them a colour palette and a type scale. It also gave the brand an asset that belongs to us, which turned out to matter later.

Fig. 04 / In situ · 2026
Vi-2 — the mascot as the face of Virgo's AI trading feature, bursting out of the phone with energy
My AI Trader — the Vi-2 mascot beside a running AI trading bot, with PNL, markets and an AI model label
Nobody was overruled. The documentation just made the brand the easier path.

The real test wasn't design review. Other teams at Virgo ship with AI tools now, which means anyone can produce something that looks finished without a designer ever seeing it. So I wrote the brand documentation to be legible to that workflow — structured, explicit, and specific about what not to do — and made sure the people generating pages had it. The output moved closer to the brand, and generic stock characters were replaced by our own mascot. A brand system with no authority behind it is a strong suggestion; the work is making the suggestion easier to follow than to ignore.

Next project

Virgo Payments

Fintech · Brand + Product · 2026

Same company, a different promise

View project