• Friendly interface
  The programming interface needs to be simple and easy to understand, which is proving to be extremely difficult as there is still relatively little knowledge about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies among general public. The more understandable the interface is to a less savvy user, the better.​
   

• Ease of use
  "Complexity is the enemy of security." What we want is a wallet that is so easy to use that it makes it almost impossible to do anything that would lead to a loss of funds. This applies to software as well as physical design of the device. Language localisation will play an increasingly important role as eventually even users who are not so skilled and less proficient in a foreign language will start to use them.
  ​

• Good display 
  The bigger it is, the better and clearer we can see what we are signing. Legibility is also related to the resolution and contrast of the screen. Wallets without screens are not addressed here and are strongly discouraged.
  ​

• Open Source
  Software code and/or the architecture of the hardware should be open source and thus verifiable by anyone. As the code on wallets is relatively minimal, it is usually subjected to multiple examinations, including attacks, and therefore more flaws are fixed sooner than in "closed-source" solutions. Open-source solution providers often offer a reward for fixing bugs, i.e. they encourage hackers to crack their code. It is expected that on such equipment there is less chance of the manufacturer using malicious software code that would allow it to seize users' assets. We would be less keen to use solutions that are certified, where we have to trust someone who, usually in return for money(!), tests the product and issues a certificate to the manufacturer.
  ​

• Security features
  A secure element can be a chip that is designed to protect data at the hardware level. It is not necessary, but in some cases it makes the device more secure. We want encrypted communication between the wallet and the computer, regardless of the type of connection (USB, Bluetooth, NFC, QR codes, etc.).
  ​

• Privacy
  We want the wallet to be simple to connect to our own node or to the node (full-node) of a provider we trust more than the manufacturer. A Bitcoin node is relatively easy to set up at home, but this is not the case for all alternative blockchains. It is preffered that the wallet supports connection via more secure networks such as Tor.
  ​

• Mobility
  We would like to be able to use it on multiple operating systems; on computers and on mobile phones.
  ​

• Making a backup copy, including analogue
  All hardware wallets are electronic devices. Even SD cards, on which some wallets make copies, are electronic devices or microcomputers with a limited lifetime. Therefore, we expect that hardware wallets will also be able to make analogue backup copies, which on a suitable medium (e.g. metal) can survive strong impacts, high heat, acids, liquids, etc.
  ​

• Compatibility between different manufacturers
  We expect that backup in the form of words, phrases, QR codes, etc., is compatible across multiple manufacturers. Some manufacturers of wallets, hardware, software or mobile, comply with certain recommendations (such as BIP or SLIP), others do not. Compatibility allows easy change of a wallet (and thus of a manufacturer) without loss of funds. We don't want to one day come across a wallet in a safe whose manufacturer has disappeared and we can no longer use it.
  ​

• Different coins, platforms supported
  This is often the most sought-after feature, although perhaps not so important in the rapidly evolving crypto asset ecosystem. Bitcoin? Altcoin? NFT? DeFi? Web3? What does supporting all possible standards and emerging forms of digital assets mean for the manufacturer, the security of the device and the user?
  Is it more secure to have a device that protects one currency perfectly (preferably Bitcoin), or one that offers everything possible?

​​

Time will tell, but let's see what is available on the market.