Will one of these hardware wallets save Ethereum? NGRAVE Zero, BitBox02, SafePal, and useBurner wallet review
After my last hardware wallet review, my DMs were flooded with recommendations. “You HAVE to try this one!” they said. “This wallet will change your mind!” they promised. So here I am, having tested four more hardware wallets that came highly recommended from the crypto community, still searching for one that actually protects users from getting rekt.
Let’s see if any of them will save Ethereum.
You can also watch this video on my YouTube.
Criteria
Our high-level wallet criteria
Before diving into the reviews, let’s establish what we are looking for in a hardware wallet. The primary purpose is simple: keep your private key safe. If it can’t do that, it fails at its core function. We won’t be considering any hardware wallets that do not fulfill this fundamental requirement.
Beyond this, I evaluated these wallets on several key criteria:
- Visibility of transaction calldata: How clearly can you see what you’re signing on both transactions and message signing?
- Open source status: Is the wallet’s code open source and reproducible? We use Wallet Scrutiny to help verify if a wallet is truly open-sourced (the Wallet Scrutiny team is not a big EVM fan, but they still help us with their reviews!)
- Security features: Secure elements, offline key generation, and backup methods.
For us, being able to easily verify our signature data was top of mind, as the easier it is to verify this data, the better we can prevent hacks like Radiant Captial and Bybit. I made a video that goes over all the information a wallet should show us, and why. The summary of that video can be found in the image here.
There are some things a wallet must show us; otherwise, it is disqualified from being used for any serious reasons. Then, there are some pieces of criteria that it would be nice if a wallet had that feature, but not a deal-breaker.
What must a wallet show us when signing a message or a transaction?
Methodology
For each wallet, I connected it to the Safe Wallet UI through MetaMask (when possible) to standardize testing across devices. I attempted to both:
- Sign an EIP-712 message
- Execute a transaction
To evaluate how well each device displayed critical data. In doing so, I played with settings, checked how they handled sending and receiving ETH, and more.
I’m going to be quite blunt with my reviews, so I don’t expect these to make me very popular. I hope the wallet companies read this article and either tell me where I went wrong, or make changes!
Let’s dive into the reviews.
SafePal: S1 Pro
The SafePal wallet comes with its own browser extension and mobile app, which initially seemed promising. It has an EAL6+ secure element, supports air-gapping, and even has a camera for QR codes.
They also have their own token (SFP)… Which was… A thing.
But in any case, the wallet seemed very promising until I started trying to send transactions. To do anything with this hardware wallet, you need three wallets:
- The browser extension
- The mobile app
- The actual hardware wallet
Want to sign an EIP-712 message? Your browser extension sends it to your mobile app, which generates a QR code, which you scan with your hardware wallet, which then… truncates all the important data anyways.
This was quite cumbersome to work with, I felt like I had to verify three transactions for every one transaction (check extension, check phone, check hardware wallet).
For developers and security professionals, this wallet is unacceptable due to its inability to show transaction calldata. For normal DeFi users, I think the UX isn’t worth it.
Pros:
- Has its own browser extension and mobile wallet app (cohesive ecosystem)
- Camera on the back for QR code scanning
- Can be air-gapped
- EAL6+ security rating
- Relatively inexpensive
Cons:
- Not open source (failed Wallet Scrutiny tests)
- Requires three devices to function
- Truncates signature data on the hardware device
BitBox02
The BitBox team reached out to me on Twitter asking for a review. Usually, when companies do this, I’m severely disappointed. Not this time.
The BitBox02 takes a unique approach to the open-source dilemma. Their firmware is completely open source (verified by Wallet Scrutiny) while using a closed-source secure chip that you don’t have to trust.
The device itself is tiny — about the size of a USB stick with touch sensors on the sides. I was initially worried about the small screen real estate, but they actually display all signature data!
Sure, the navigation is a bit funky (tapping the sides to scroll), and typing your password on this thing daily is a pain, but it shows all the data. That’s all I want. That’s all I’ve been asking for.
Would I recommend this to Bybit Ben? Probably not — the raw data format might be too technical. Would I recommend this to security researchers? Hell yes. It’s open source, shows everything, and doesn’t try to hide critical information.
Pros:
- Fully open-source firmware
- Shows complete signature data
- Includes micro SD card for backup/disaster recovery
- Small, portable form factor
Cons:
- Very small screen (limited real estate)
- Typing password daily is cumbersome
- Doesn’t work with MetaMask (only Rabby currently)
- Requires BitBox Bridge software to connect to Rabby
Burner
After giving Tangem a hard time for being a card wallet, I realized I was judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Card wallets like Burner should be judged differently — they’re meant for small amounts, like a $20 bill in your pocket for coffee.
The Burner card uses RFID for tap-to-pay functionality, which is conceptually cool. But the implementation is clunky:
- You need to run a “Halo gateway” on your phone (basically a server)
- Connect it to Burner OS on your desktop
- Then tap your card to your phone to send transactions
Even on the UI, you can’t check calldata, but I guess I shouldn’t care, because with “tap-to-pay” you can’t check calldata anyway.
These wallets might be great in the future when you can actually tap to pay for coffee with crypto, but I wouldn’t want to store large amounts of crypto on them.
Pros:
- Tap-to-pay functionality with RFID
- Very portable (credit card size)
- Cheap ($20)
- Good for small amounts/casual use
Cons:
- No hardware screen
- Can’t verify calldata at all
- It’s not a hardware wallet, really, it’s more of a.. card
NGRAVE Zero
This wallet hurts to review because it’s SO GOOD in every way except the one that matters most.
The NGRAVE Zero feels premium. It has:
- Biometric fingerprint authentication
- A built-in camera for QR codes
- EAL7 certification (the highest security rating)
- A beautiful touchscreen interface
- Custom operating system
I loved working with this wallet, until I went to sign messages.
Whether you’re signing an EIP-712 message, a regular message, or sending a transaction, the wallet always just says “signing a transaction.” For EIP-712 messages, it doesn’t show the struct, but a very bizarre format of strings. For calldata, the same.
Pros:
- Premium build quality (feels good in hand)
- Biometric fingerprint authentication
- Built-in camera for QR codes
- EAL7 certification (highest security rating)
- Beautiful touchscreen interface
- Compatible with MetaMask via QR codes
Cons:
- Shows data in unrecognizable format (not hex, not the actual struct)
- Expensive for what it delivers
Summary and Conclusion
BitBox02 joins Trezor, Ledger, and GridPlus as a wallet I would consider acceptable for security researchers, but none of them will save Ethereum.
Remember that the primary goal of a hardware wallet is to keep your private keys safe while allowing you to verify what you’re signing. If you can’t understand what you’re signing, you shouldn’t proceed with the transaction, regardless of which wallet you use.
For developers and security researchers in the EVM ecosystem, I recommend selecting a wallet that aligns with your specific priorities — whether that’s open-source verification, ease of transaction decoding, or signature verification capabilities.
The Search Continues
The BitBox02 gives me hope that wallet manufacturers are starting to get it. But we’re still far from where we need to be. We need wallets that are:
- Transparent about what you’re signing
- Open source where possible
- Secure against physical attacks
- Usable by both grandma and gigabrains
Until then, stay safe out there, and remember: if you can’t verify what you’re signing on your hardware device, you’re one malicious website away from getting rekt.
To learn to sign these complex transactions, you can use games like wise-signer.
For more amazing blockchain content, follow me on YouTube and X.
And be sure to follow the Cyfrin team!
