Ledger, a prominent cryptocurrency hardware wallet provider, is facing criticism following the release of its new native multisig interface. While the update was initially welcomed as a technical advancement, the introduction of per-transaction fees has sparked backlash from developers and users alike, with some accusing the company of implementing a "cash cow" model.
The new multisig feature, launched alongside the Nano Gen5 device and the revamped Ledger Wallet app, introduces Ledger's first in-house coordination system. This system allows multiple signers to verify transactions through Ledger's backend, eliminating the need for third-party tools. However, the excitement surrounding this development has been overshadowed by the announcement of transaction fees.
Ledger's new fee structure includes a $10 flat fee for standard cryptocurrency transfers and a 0.05% fee on ERC-20 token transactions, in addition to standard network gas costs. Ledger defends these fees by stating that they are for the "secured and facilitated access it provides to these services through Ledger Multisig".
Critics argue that these fees contradict Ledger's initial mission of promoting self-custody without intermediaries. Some developers have voiced concerns that monetizing security is inappropriate. Security researcher pcaversaccio, a key contributor to SEAL-911, characterized the move as a "cash-cow" strategy that compromises Ledger's cypherpunk ethos and risks turning self-custody into a corporate revenue stream. Another developer, Sarnavo from the Avalanche ecosystem, pointed out that while features like clear signing enhance security, they are now behind a paywall.
Adding to the controversy, Ledger's CTO, Charles Guillemet, initially tweeted that "Ledger Multisig is free. No extra cost. No complexity". He later clarified that this was a "typo" and that multisig is indeed a paid service.
Transparency concerns have also been raised regarding Ledger's closed-source interface. Critics argue that users cannot verify how data is handled during signing or what data is stored on Ledger's backend servers. The undisclosed transaction service used for coordinating multisig signatures has further fueled these concerns, leaving users uncertain about their privacy.
Another point of contention is the lack of support for the older Nano S model. Millions of users still rely on the Nano S, which was once marketed as the affordable entry point to self-custody. The exclusion of Nano S users from the new multisig service has raised concerns about accessibility and the potential for Ledger to leave behind its existing user base.
The situation highlights the tension between providing innovative features and maintaining the principles of self-custody and transparency within the cryptocurrency community. It remains to be seen how Ledger will respond to the criticism and address the concerns raised by its users and the broader crypto community.
