On January 23, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the doubts surrounding Ledger erupted: multiple customer privacy data leaks resulting in millions of dollars in losses, the exposure of risks associated with Nano X hardware defects, and the commercial plan to charge fees for clear signing were all scrutinized under the public microscope within the same time frame. A leading hardware wallet manufacturer that prides itself on "security" is now being questioned: is the rush to push for fees and an IPO in the U.S. a necessary path for commercialization, or a gamble on the trust threshold before data security commitments and product reliability have regained user recognition? Whether global users are still willing to pay for Ledger's security narrative has become an unavoidable question in the entire self-custody crypto space.
Privacy Scandals: The Shadow of Security Under Millions in Losses
● Data Leak Context: Recently, Ledger has been repeatedly exposed for customer privacy data leaks, with reports indicating "multiple leaks resulting in cumulative losses of millions of dollars." The leaked content not only involves personal information such as email addresses, names, and contact details but also raises concerns about potential associations with users' on-chain asset profiles, putting those who originally relied on hardware wallets for "anonymity" at risk of being identifiable in the real world.
● From Privacy to Loss: According to sources like Deep Tide TechFlow and Jinse Finance, the market generally associates the "millions of dollars in losses" with these data leak incidents, believing that once attackers have access to addresses and real-name clues, the thresholds for extortion, phishing, and targeted fraud significantly decrease. In real cases, users face not only the threat of wallet theft but may also encounter targeted attacks on social media, email, and even in real life, turning "privacy leaks" into tangible financial losses and personal safety hazards.
● Industry Spillover Effect: As a leading hardware wallet manufacturer, Ledger's series of privacy scandals is seen as a systemic alarm for the entire sector. For many new users, it is difficult to distinguish the technical and operational differences between various manufacturers; the collapse of trust in a leading company is often simply projected as "hardware wallets are not secure," weakening the overall appeal of the self-custody path and even causing some to revert to centralized custody platforms.
● Anxiety of Information Asymmetry: With loss figures presented only as "millions of dollars" and specific attack paths and responsibilities not fully clarified, users can only piece together the truth from scattered reports and social media fragments. Key details still need further verification and disclosure, and the information asymmetry amplifies feelings of unease: not knowing exactly what happened, whether they are on the list, or if similar incidents will occur in the future.
From Battery Failures to Clear Signing: Cracks in the Security Myth
● Daily Troubles of Hardware Defects: In addition to the data-related turmoil, the battery and other hardware defects of the Ledger Nano X have become a "countdown to hidden dangers" in the minds of heavy users. Issues such as abnormal battery depletion, difficulty powering on after long periods of inactivity, and failure to complete signatures at critical moments mean that during market volatility, users may miss operational windows due to unstable device status, or even find themselves in the awkward situation of "hardware offline" when urgently transferring assets.
● Security Commitment of Clear Signing: In stark contrast to hardware defects is the official high-profile promotion of the clear signing feature—providing complete transaction details on the device screen to avoid users "blind signing" on computers or mobile devices, which is portrayed as a key selling point for enhanced security. According to Ledger's narrative, this feature should help users clearly confirm receiving addresses, amounts, and contract interaction content, reducing the risk of being misled by malicious interfaces or malicious Dapps.
● Gap Between Promotion and Experience: When a company long claims to adhere to "the highest security standards" but faces repeated criticism regarding battery life and device reliability, user trust in the security myth naturally begins to wane. The so-called "military-grade security chip" and complex encryption architecture are often negated by the simple statement, "the device won't turn on again." The gap between security narratives and real experiences leads users to question whether the security model on paper truly covers all the details of daily use.
● Sensitive Nerve of Charging for Security Features: Against this backdrop, when Ledger links the core security feature of clear signing, positioned as "ensuring no blind signing," to fees, community sentiment becomes particularly sensitive. For many users, this is not just a pricing issue but a matter of value hierarchy—when a manufacturer chooses to tier charge for foundational security capabilities, users inevitably wonder: which protections are basic rights, and which are considered "value-added services"?
Debate Over Paying for Security or Being Exploited
● Timing of Fee Announcement and Emotional Outburst: The timing of Ledger's announcement to charge fees for clear signing coincides with ongoing controversies over data leaks and hardware defects. Without seeing sufficient remedial plans, audit results, and accountability, the first thing to emerge is a commercial pricing plan for a function directly related to security, which is interpreted in public discourse as "considering making more money before the problems are solved," quickly igniting user dissatisfaction.
● Moral Hazard Criticism from Opinion Leaders: On-chain analyst ZachXBT publicly criticized Ledger for pushing for an IPO and new fees while security and product defect issues remain unresolved, sparking widespread discussion about "moral hazard." Critics argue that when a company that holds the usage habits of many high-net-worth users' keys monetizes security features that should be guaranteed, yet fails to provide a complete account of existing security incidents, it is inherently a depletion of user trust.
● Is Security a Standard or a Luxury? In users' minds, the divide over whether "security belongs to basic configuration or value-added service" is now fully exposed. Some people can accept paying for a higher standard of security experience but find it hard to accept that basic security is artificially split and sold separately; others believe that as long as usage is not mandatory, charging for features belongs to market choice. However, when all this occurs amid ongoing discussions of data leaks and hardware issues, "charging" becomes emotionally equated with "exploitation."
● Intrinsic Tension of Business Models: Ledger's approach also brings the controversy over the business model of the hardware wallet industry to the forefront—should it sell hardware once and package security capabilities upfront, or continuously sell security services and extend cash flow through feature subscriptions and tiered fees? The former is difficult to support long-term R&D and compliance costs, while the latter can easily lead to conflicts with users over pricing and boundaries. Ledger's choice has exposed this tension in a highly controversial manner.
User Trust Declines, Ledger Accelerates Towards Capital Markets
● Pushing for IPO Amid the Storm: Amid ongoing controversies, Ledger has been reported to be actively advancing its IPO plans in the U.S. From an external perspective, this is a posture of "charging towards the capital market against public opinion": facing user doubts about privacy, security, and product defects on one side, while attempting to leverage the public market for larger-scale funding and brand endorsement on the other, with both paths highly overlapping on the timeline.
● Combination of High Recognition and Trust Crisis: For the capital market, Ledger possesses both "leading industry brand" and "focus of trust controversy" labels. High recognition means stronger storytelling ability and larger potential market space, but the trust crisis directly translates into uncertainties regarding compliance, litigation, and user growth. Investors need to weigh the risks and returns between "entering early to bet on monopoly position" and "cautiously observing reputation recovery."
● Pressure of Information Disclosure Before and After Listing: As the IPO progresses, Ledger will inevitably face stricter regulatory and information disclosure requirements, and past decision-making logic regarding data leaks, hardware defects, and charging strategies may be magnified in prospectuses and regulatory inquiries. After listing, any new security incidents and negative public sentiment will no longer be just "community debates," but will immediately reflect in stock price fluctuations and regulatory compliance pressures, forcing greater transparency in disclosing security incidents and accountability.
● Shadows of Industry Precedents: The crypto industry is not lacking in cases where "technology companies with controversies enter the capital market and subsequently face pressure from litigation and regulatory issues." For Ledger, if another security incident occurs in the future, the impact will not only affect users and the company itself but also public market investors and partners. The combination of reputational and litigation pressures may make this IPO feel more like a high-leverage gamble rather than a smooth capital milestone.
The Decline of Centralized Custodians: Another Path to Decentralized Self-Custody
● Atmosphere of Overall Trust Decline: Reflecting on the entire crypto market from the Ledger incident, one can sense that patience with centralized custodians and "single-point trust vaults" is waning. Whether it is risk control incidents on trading platforms or privacy scandals and charging disputes among hardware wallet manufacturers, they all remind users that concentrating all trust in a few entities is itself a structural risk.
● Divergence of Different Security Assumptions: Traditional hardware wallets rely on a closed model of "dedicated devices + security chips," requiring users to trust manufacturers at every stage of hardware, firmware, and supply chain. In contrast, more decentralized self-custody solutions like multi-signature and MPC attempt to dismantle the "single point of failure" risk into "multi-point games" by distributing private keys or signing permissions. The security assumptions of the two paths differ: the former emphasizes physical isolation and device integrity, while the latter emphasizes structural dispersion and replaceability.
● Acceleration Towards Open Source and Verifiable Solutions: The controversies surrounding Ledger have, to some extent, strengthened the community's interest in "open source, verifiable, community-led" solutions. Even if these solutions still have shortcomings in usability and barriers, their transparency in governance structure and upgrade paths is seen as an antidote to "black box decision-making" and "forced charging strategies." It is hard to say whether Ledger will directly lose a large number of users, but it is foreseeable that some highly sensitive users will more actively embrace auditable and forkable alternative tools.
● New Competitive Landscape and Pressure for Security Standards: Under this migration expectation, the hardware wallet industry may be forced to redefine its value proposition. On one hand, manufacturers need to complement multi-signature, MPC, and other solutions in device form rather than simply competing; on the other hand, they must also accept dual pressures from the community and regulators regarding security standards—not only proving "not stealing or leaking" but also providing sustainable transparent mechanisms for charging models, data processing, and incident response.
The Bottom Line of the Security Business: Industry Choices After Ledger's Gamble
At the intersection of the triple pressures of data leaks, product defects, and charging strategies, Ledger reveals not a single incident but a whole set of structural issues: from governance capabilities regarding user privacy and asset security to the emphasis on product reliability and user experience, and how to prioritize "security and profitability" in the commercialization path. Once a security brand overdraws trust, no amount of technical updates or marketing narratives can quickly repair the already cracked psychological barrier.
For all hardware wallet manufacturers, an increasingly clear bottom line is forming: first is security transparency—there can no longer be reliance on vague narratives regarding data usage, vulnerability disclosure, and incident reviews; second is accountability—when security commitments are breached by reality, there must be verifiable actions on how to compensate, rectify, and prevent recurrence; finally, there are charging boundaries—what security capabilities belong to users' basic rights, and which value-added services can be charged with full disclosure, the boundaries need to be clearly delineated.
As regulatory intervention deepens, capital pursuit slows, and user awareness increases, the consensus that "security is a product" rather than "security is marketing" is accelerating in formation. In the future, regulations may force manufacturers to incorporate security into financial statements and compliance frameworks through disclosure rules and accountability; capital will consider the history of security incidents and governance structures more in valuation models; and users will redefine who deserves to hold their keys through actual actions of migrating assets and changing tools. The outcome of Ledger's gamble will ultimately influence the entire industry's rewriting of the bottom line for the security business.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
