How Dextape reviews a hardware wallet
A score without a method is marketing. This is the rubric. We will not publish a numeric verdict on a device we have not put through it.
Dextape’s Reviews desk has not yet published a scored verdict on a named device. What follows is the method we will use when we do. Any review that carries a score will link here.
The rubric
- Address and transaction verification: can you confirm a receive address, and the details of a spend or contract approval, on the device’s own screen without trusting the computer or phone it is connected to?
- Backup and recovery: can you restore the wallet from its backup without a vendor account, a mobile-only flow or command-line tools? Is the recovery process documented in plain language?
- Phishing surface: how many official domains, apps and email senders must a user learn to trust? Fewer, clearly published channels are easier to defend.
- Platform limits: what cannot be signed from iOS, Android or a freshly installed desktop? Which assets and networks need third-party software?
- Disclosure quality: when something breaks, is the vendor’s first public notice specific about what was affected, what was not and what users should do?
What a vendor-email incident changes
A compromised email or marketing provider is a test of the phishing-surface line, not automatically of the device’s secure element. Dextape covers those incidents on the wire with attribution. We will not quietly revise a score because a headline was loud. Revisions are dated on this page.
Sponsored placements, if they ever appear, will be labeled Sponsored and will not use this rubric’s numbers.
Use the rubric yourself
The same questions work before you buy any signer: can you verify on the device, can you restore without the vendor, how many channels must you trust, does it work on your platforms, and how did the vendor handle its last incident? Then follow the self-custody checklist when you set it up.