Two-sided discovery — 3 October 2026, second round Question The asset catalogue answers what is available, but it must serve two different customers. A depositor wants a plan for tokens or cash. An options buyer wants a quote for a market view. Buying an underlying token lower is a depositor intent, not the same route as buying an option. Scope Three static desktop/phone design simulations, shown in Eiko's approved skin. Gyro carries local copies for review; no runtime dependency on Eiko. No new live discovery page, amount-aware backtest, budget solver or payoff calculator ships. The earlier approved catalogue remains the starting point for discovery. Inputs Reference 1: 2026-10-03-discovery/concept-a.png, approved catalogue direction. Reference 2: 2026-10-03-discovery/concept-b.png, role clarity. Reference 3: original eiko-mascot.png, identity only. Built-in imagegen, three independent prompts, followed by one focused correction to B. No inference about the backend image model. Full prompts: prompts.txt; the targeted B edit: revision-b.txt. Generated UI is not responsive code. Number discipline — all fixtures are invented, explicitly illustrative No record in this round is a live quote or actual TIBBIR history. The made-up past example uses 1,000 TIBBIR and a 0.26 target; under its assumed completed conversion the limit order leaves 260 USDC. The hypothetical vault outcome is 273 USDC, hence 13 USDC more. No real backtest produced that outcome. Do not scale an observed normalized return into a wallet claim without validating the actual starting amount and entry conditions. The independent buyer example is a SIMPLE CALL ILLUSTRATION: quantity 5,000 TIBBIR units; strike 0.26 USDC; total purchase cost 100 USDC. At an expiry price of 0.30, illustrative payout = 5000*(0.30-0.26) = 200 USDC; profit after the specified purchase cost = 100 USDC. At an expiry price of 0.24, illustrative payout = 0; profit = -100 USDC. The illustrative expiry label is 10 Oct. It is not an offered expiration. These arithmetic checks do not witness an actual Markets contract or its rights. Gas, execution, fee rights, settlement, exercise requirements and all funding components must be established from the real quote and contract before shipping. A2 — Two routes on each asset Keeps the catalogue recognizable, with Earn fees and Buy options on every card. The expanded TIBBIR area allows both purposes to be considered without leaving the asset. It also becomes the densest proposal. Before implementation: remove repeated asset descriptions; do not privilege Buy options on every unselected card just because that route is selected in one card. The phone omits parts of the amount/target and expiry context plus the explicit no-vault-deposit cue. Preserve those when the corresponding result is visible. It also drops buyer scenarios on phone; a real implementation needs same-code access to them, not desktop-only risk information. B2 — Site-wide Earn / Buy switch Every catalogue value belongs to the selected role. Less repeated decision-making on each card, and no mixing historical depositor outperformance with buyer cost. Potential issue: a user arriving through a deep link must see which mode is active. The first generated image invented 'From 100 USDC' on all assets from the budget fixture. That is not a minimum price. The corrective edit removes those lines. The phone keeps total purchase cost but omits scenarios; make them available through the same component in any future implementation. C2 — One asset, two plans Most direct expression of the user's question: I have a plan, what does this mean in money? The two desktop columns keep past outcome and option scenario distinct. The phone keeps the buyer inputs, no-vault-deposit cue, and both gain/loss cases. Most useful as the next screen after selecting an asset, not as four large forms repeated on the catalogue. Before implementation: trim redundant 'not a forecast' text where 'past outcome' or 'at expiry' already establishes the meaning. The explicit hypothetical marker belongs to this design review, not to real product data. The phone's disclosure arrow states are not reliable evidence of interaction; implement actual accessible expand/collapse state, focus and retained inputs. Preference for review C2 is strongest for the selected-asset plan view. A2 is the smallest change to the approved catalogue; B2 is the strongest separation when users know their role. This is not an instruction to merge all three into a busy homepage. Future engineering constraints - Browse without a wallet. Option buyers do not first deposit into a vault. - Listing existing vault shares remains a different seller action. - Display only real executable options, with total cost including applicable consumed funding and fees. Never advertise the illustrative budget as a minimum. - Goal entry uses available strikes and existing deposit/aggregator constraints; it does not promise a new strike or an exact-price limit-order fill. - For depositors retain the approved passive-limit comparator. For buyers, calculate actual contract payout and profit after purchase cost separately. - A goal-based historic amount requires validated entry assumptions, not simply relabelling the old normalized 1,000-unit illustration as 'your return'. - Failure is not zero; negative scenarios stay equally visible. Do not show a gain-only phone version, forecast yield from IV, or reuse vault return badges as option-buyer performance. - Keep independent copied implementations and site configuration. No engine rewrite. Checks and acceptance The plain test validates gallery completeness and arithmetic of these fictional fixtures only. It does not certify financial logic or user understanding. Ask a newcomer which route buys an option without a vault deposit, which result has already happened, and whether payout equals profit. Compare desktop and phone comprehension, then choose a layout before implementation.