Standards
Review methodology
What we examine, what evidence we record, and what our reviews deliberately do not claim.
Scope of a review
We review wallets and related tooling as setups a person has to live with, not as feature lists. Each review states its subject, the criteria applied and the observations recorded against them.
Evidence
Every criterion is answered with an observation we can point to. If we did not observe something, we say so rather than inferring it from marketing material.
Scores and ratings
We do not publish numeric scores. A single number hides the trade-offs that matter and invites comparison between products used for different purposes.
Disclosure
Each review states how the subject was obtained and whether any commercial relationship exists. Reviews are never conditioned on vendor approval.
Structured data
Review structured data is emitted only for genuine, methodology-backed reviews. Explainers and analysis use Article markup instead. See our editorial policy.
Limits
A review describes what we observed at a point in time. Firmware, apps and vendor policies change; the update date on each review shows when it was last revisited.
Assessment criteria
- Setup clarity
- Whether a first-time user can complete setup from the vendor's own documentation without guessing.
- Recovery design
- Whether the recovery path is documented, testable before funds are added, and survivable if one device is lost.
- Update handling
- How firmware or app updates are delivered, and whether the user must confirm them deliberately.
- Confirmation legibility
- Whether destination and permission details are readable on the signing surface, not only in the requesting app.
- Documentation and disclosure
- Whether security claims are specific, dated and accompanied by a vulnerability reporting route.