If everyone is scared of hardware wallet as their safety option and self custody option who wins? Who benefits the most from this? I guess the centralised entities and the banks.
What if this is it? What if the goals of these people is to strike fear in the mind of holders that giving up their Bitcoin to custodial entities is the only way forward?
I know what many people will say, that I am just scared because one hardware wallet got ruined, ColdCard as the main example, but before you said this few people surrounding myself have already started to show this sign.
It's what made me think this way, my friends are already complaining that hardware wallets aren't safe anymore, one fell and others are already looking like spoilt eggs.
Is there any evil agenda behind this or it's just normal human reaction?
From what I have read, the previous issue with the Coldcard stemmed from a bug discovered by hackers in its firmware. This vulnerability allowed hackers to reconstruct the wallet's seed phrase due to the weak RNG (Random Number Generator) implementation by the developers. Fortunately, a new firmware update is now available to secure new wallets.
Source : cbc.ca - Coldcard HackIn my opinion, developers should conduct thorough testing, especially on the devices they create; to prevent vulnerabilities like this from arising. When such an incident occurs, who is to blame ? The answer is developer negligence. Companies creating financial tools must exercise extreme caution regarding issues that might otherwise seem trivial.
Regarding your question, I don't know if there was any malicious intent behind the incident, but the most important thing is; that we cannot simply generalize, or assume all similar devices share the same flaw. Whatever the story; self-custody of Bitcoin is better, and this is something everyone needs to realize.
