There are few things as personal to Nigerians as their money, and increasingly, the apps through which they move it.
So when Kuda changed the face customers had come to associate with their money, the reaction was immediate.

The Nigerian fintech recently introduced a new visual identity, replacing the familiar logo that had become closely associated with its previous brand identity. The new mark is bolder and more stripped back. To Kuda, it represents a new chapter. To some customers and designers on X, however, it is a change they never asked for.

The debate raises a bigger question than whether one logo looks better than another: Why does a company that has already built such a recognisable identity feel the need to change it?


To understand that, it helps to go back to the beginning.



𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗞𝗨𝗗𝗔, 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗞𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗬
Kuda did not begin as the bank millions of Nigerians know today.

It's roots go back to 𝗞𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆, an online savings and lending platform founded by 𝗕𝗮𝗯𝘀 𝗢𝗴𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝘆𝗶 and 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗮. The company initially focused on digital lending and savings before evolving into a full-service digital bank.
The two founders brought different experiences to the problem they were trying to solve.
𝗢𝗴𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝘆𝗶 came from finance, having worked at 𝗣𝘄𝗖 and later served as a finance adviser to the Oyo State Government. 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗮 brought technical expertise, having worked as a software developer in Nigeria’s banking sector. Their combination of financial-services knowledge and technology became central to the company’s early proposition.
The problem they saw was familiar to many Nigerians: fees, friction and a banking experience that often felt designed around the institution rather than the customer.

Kudimoney was built around a simple proposition; use technology to make financial services easier and cheaper.

Then came the pivotal moment, in 2019, 𝗞𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 received a microfinance banking licence from the Central Bank of Nigeria and rebranded as 𝗞𝘂𝗱𝗮. The change was more than cosmetic. The company was moving from a lending-and-savings product toward becoming a digital bank. Its proposition centred on digital banking, reduced fees and a mobile-first experience.
In September 2019, the company raised $1.6 million in pre-seed funding, helping finance its next stage of expansion.






𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗕𝗔𝗡𝗞 𝗧𝗢 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠
The Kuda that emerged from that period grew rapidly.

It raised a $10 million seed round in 2020, followed by larger funding rounds that helped turn the young Nigerian fintech into one of Africa’s most prominent challenger banks. By 2021, Kuda had raised a $55 million Series B at a reported $500 million valuation.

But perhaps more important than the funding was the evolution of the product.
Kuda expanded beyond the basic banking experience. It introduced savings, overdrafts, cards, payments, investments and business banking. The company’s ambitions also expanded beyond Nigeria.
Kuda was no longer simply trying to be an alternative to traditional banks. It was building a broader financial platform. That growth changes the branding problem.
The identity that worked for a young, mobile-only challenger bank does not necessarily communicate the same thing when the company is becoming a much larger financial institution.

Kuda’s evolution continued, that, in 2026, the company received approval to operate as a National Microfinance Bank, upgrading from its previous unit licence. The new licence removes geographical restrictions and gives Kuda the ability to establish customer experience centres in different parts of Nigeria.

Importantly, Kuda has said the move does not mean abandoning it's digital-first model. Instead, the company intends to combine digital banking with physical points where customers want face-to-face assistance. That is a significant evolution for a company whose original appeal was partly built on being different from traditional banks.

Kuda is no longer simply telling Nigerians, “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩", It is increasingly saying: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 ".

At the same time, the company now serves a much wider range of financial needs than it did when its identity was first established. This provides the broader context for the new visual identity.
But there is an important distinction. Kuda’s publicly available materials establish the company’s expansion, product growth and new national banking status, but they do not provide a detailed public explanation specifically connecting those developments to the exact logo redesign now being debated online.

So it would be inaccurate to state as fact that “𝘒𝘶𝘥𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘟", what can reasonably be said is that the redesign arrives at a moment when Kuda itself has changed considerably, from a young 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 into a much broader financial platform with national ambitions.
The logo may be intended to reflect that evolution.
But whether customers believe the new identity successfully communicates it is another matter entirely.



𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗘𝗧'𝗦 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗧
The response on X has been strikingly divided, although the screenshots reviewed for this article show a clear concentration of criticism.

For some users, the problem is not that Kuda changed. It is that the old identity already worked.

One anonymous X commenter wrote:
“I’m not against the rebrand, but honestly the old logo had more character. The new one is bolder, but it also feels a bit more generic.”


Another simply said:
“The previous one is better pls. I don’t see the need for the rebranding honestly.”


And then there were the jokes.
One anonymous commenter compared the new mark to an Igbo-language learning application, writing:
"Someone said the new logo looks like an Igbo language learning app logo…… ‘KEDU’"


For another user, the issue went beyond the logo itself:
“The old brand style and logo was what draw my attention to Kuda because it was epic than other bank’s. But with this, I’d just stick to OPay. Honestly this design looks like amateurs. From luxury to ordinary brand.”

The criticism was not confined to casual users. Several of the comments came from people identifying themselves as designers or creatives.

One anonymous commenter described the rebrand bluntly:
"The rebranding doesn’t make sense to me anyways.”

Another wrote:
"Personally, I think the old logo is wayyyyyyy better.”

And another questioned whether the change was necessary at all:
"No it wasn’t needed. I preferred the green to this purple.”


The strongest criticism came from a commenter who believed the old mark still had room to evolve:
" If at all they wanted to do something to show a refresh, they could have just taken away the full stop, that would have been a smarter positioning than the rigid logo mark rebrand they have now.”


Another commenter went even further, saying:
"The old branding was definitely way better than what they have now.”




𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝗠𝗔𝗬 𝗕𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗢
Some of the most interesting reactions suggest that customers are not evaluating the logo in isolation.

One commenter said:
"The old logo is unique but a change is not bad either, my problem is the new interface.”

Another described the new experience as:
"Omo the way I see am… It’s more worse and less navigateable.”

That distinction is important. Alogo is only one part of a brand identity. Customers experience the brand through an app, customer support, transaction speed, pricing, reliability, advertising and every other interaction they have with the company.

If the product experience feels worse at the same time the logo changes, customers can interpret the visual change as evidence of a wider decline — even if the two things are unrelated.

One anonymous commenter illustrated this perfectly by writing:
“My mum has been calling me to explain the app again after I already spent days explaining it to her. In my opinion, it’s not very adult-friendly.”



In other words, for some users, the conversation isn’t really about typography or colour. It is about "𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆".



𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗔𝗦 𝗔 𝗡𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘
A documentary account would be incomplete without acknowledging that the reaction has not been universally negative.

One commenter defended the change:
"It might not make sense to we that are viewing it from the outside, because I believe that when big brands rebrand there’s always a level of strategy and critical thinking behind it.”

Another said:
"Left to me, the new logo isn’t bad… Overall, it’s a nice, minimalist design that represents the Kuda brand.”

Another user thought the redesign could be evidence of a broader strategic shift:
"I think it looks cool though. It seems like they’re going after a new audience or target market and they’re trying to stay true to the new vibe.”

And one commenter offered the simplest defence of all:

“It wasn’t necessary. But I like it.”

There was even a designer who seemed to predict the controversy:
"I kinda like the new one, I saw this coming long time ago tbh.”

So the internet’s verdict is not unanimous.

But the loudest criticism is remarkably consistent: the old identity had personality, recognition and emotional value, while the new one feels more generic to some viewers.




𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗞 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚, 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗟𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗𝗬 𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗
This is the paradox at the heart of Kuda’s redesign.
Companies rebrand because they change.

Their products become more sophisticated. Their audiences expand. Their ambitions become bigger. Their old visual identity may no longer represent what they have become.

But customers don’t experience a brand strategy document. They experience a logo.

And when a logo has been present every time they opened an app, transferred money or received a notification, it accumulates emotional familiarity.

Kuda’s old identity became part of the visual language of Nigerian fintech. Its colours and distinctive mark helped separate it from a growing field of digital banks and payment platforms.

That is why several of the X reactions are not simply saying, “The new logo is ugly.”

They are saying something more consequential:

“Why did you remove something that made you recognisable?”

One anonymous commenter put that argument particularly clearly:
"The old logo, using my brand strategy & design eye to look at it; was adaptable enough to flow with whatever strategic direction they choose to go in. I could see a progressive Kuda, very brilliant work that doesn’t need fixing.”

That is the central criticism of the redesign. Not that Kuda should never change. But that change should solve a problem.


𝗙𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲,
There is an irony in Kuda’s story.
The company has already rebranded once, and that first rebrand was directly tied to a major strategic transformation.

In 2019, Kudimoney became Kuda as the company obtained its banking licence and moved toward full-service digital banking.

Seven years later, the company is undergoing another transformation.

It has millions more customers. Its product portfolio is broader. Its ambitions extend beyond its original Nigerian-only focus. It has obtained a national microfinance banking licence and is preparing for a more expansive physical presence while maintaining its digital core.

The question, therefore, is not whether Kuda has changed, because it clearly has. he question is whether the new identity communicates that change better than the old one did.

That answer will not come from a design presentation.

It will come from customers.

And right now, if the conversations captured in these X posts are anything to go by, many of those customers are still looking at the new Kuda logo and asking the simplest question of all:

"𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘁"?




𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
Kuda’s new logo marks another chapter in the fintech’s journey from a bold startup to a more established digital banking brand. While the rebrand may be intended to signal growth and a new direction, the mixed reactions show that changing a familiar identity can come with resistance.