Tether launches "Tether.wallet" (Bitcoin/Lightning/USDT)

[PrivacyG]

This wallet kind of reminds me of the old Bread wallet design.  Although I am pretty sure Bread wallet was open source and non custodial.  It looks good, but what is the point of even trying it out if so many red flags spin around it?  Personal email addresses of future hundreds of thousands of people being linked to an encrypted seed, it does not sound like a good idea at all.  It tries to reinvent the wheel in a dangerous way.

[dkbit98]

No thank you, I am not interested in using another closed source wallet, and giving my support to tether company or their products 

Tether company is holding $141 billion in US Treasuries, and that is making them one of the largest holder of US gov debt in the world!
If you want to go deeper into this you should read this post, but Tether is basically debt backed by government debt, and stacked on debt.
https://x.com/0xSweep/status/2045851380393648518

[Dogedegen]

Tether.wallet simply gives company more visibility into users' tokens, which facilitates freezing actions. The underlying power of relevant smart contract functions remains exactly the same.

No it does not, simply because you say it it does not make it true. They do not need the wallet for anything related to freezing. They do not do anything relating to freezing on their own will, they are following regulations and issue freezes only when they need to. So a claim that they would build a whole wallet to gather more information on users that they will selectively freeze is false.

Where is the difference between an original or a copy of a digital file? For instance, would you be comfortable sending me a copy of the seed phrases you use, passwords, or any other secrets? Remember, it's just a copy. You will get to keep the original. Does it matter if I have the original or a digital copy of your private information and data?

If there were no differences between an original and a copy, why would we invent the word called backup? It seems that you guys are hell bent on proving some weird case that you keep missing the obvious. A wallet that is hosted on your phone and backed up to the cloud whether by you or by some third party service is a completely different setup than a wallet that only exists in the cloud and is hosted by someone else such as the company that is providing it. That is the difference that I am trying to talk about, they are entirely 2 different scenarios with completely different security considerations. It is so easy to understand, what is the problem?

but it can't be categorized as "self-custodial" unless you can verify that you are the only one who's in custody of your wallet.

I explained what I meant above, but you still didn't answer my specific question. If I back up my wallet to the cloud in any form, then it is no longer self-custodial because the cloud storage service provider has access to it like Dropbox?

This wallet kind of reminds me of the old Bread wallet design.  Although I am pretty sure Bread wallet was open source and non custodial.  It looks good, but what is the point of even trying it out if so many red flags spin around it?  Personal email addresses of future hundreds of thousands of people being linked to an encrypted seed, it does not sound like a good idea at all.  It tries to reinvent the wheel in a dangerous way.

As I said this is nothing new, you need to ask the whole shitcoin space first and not Tether only.

[nc50lc]

but it can't be categorized as "self-custodial" unless you can verify that you are the only one who's in custody of your wallet.

I explained what I meant above, but you still didn't answer my specific question. If I back up my wallet to the cloud in any form, then it is no longer self-custodial because the cloud storage service provider has access to it like Dropbox?

From the limited info that we know about the wallet, yes, but I explained why it depends on the factors that I've mentioned.
So don't expect a simple "yes" or "no" answer to this.

What I'm saying is, my reply is about categorizing it as a "Web Wallet", being self-custodial or custodial depends on those factors.

[satscraper]

Tether.wallet simply gives company more visibility into users' tokens, which facilitates freezing actions. The underlying power of relevant smart contract functions remains exactly the same.

They do not do anything relating to freezing on their own will, they are following regulations and issue freezes only when they need to.

Red and blue contradict each other, while the blue one made me laugh.

So a claim that they would build a whole wallet to gather more information on users that they will selectively freeze is false

How do you know that it’s false? I’m starting to suspect that you’re one of them.

Generally speaking ^{based on your current and previous posts} I can conclude that you deny the obvious fact that having its own wallet gives company additional visibility into users’ funds, which in turn strengthens its power. You are of course free to hold your own interpretation of reality, however twisted it may be, but it makes no sense for me to continue arguing with someone who has such the limited view of the situation. So you may choose not to answer my question above ^{as you have already made the air clear around you through your posts on the forum.}

[Pmalek]

They do not need the wallet for anything related to freezing. They do not do anything relating to freezing on their own will, they are following regulations and issue freezes only when they need to.

The police and army don't shoot people on their own will. The police and army shoot people when they are ordered to and when following orders. Does that matter for the one shot in the chest or their loved ones?

If there were no differences between an original and a copy, why would we invent the word called backup?

Feel free to PM me a copy or backup of your seed. You can also post it here publicly. Since it's different from the original, you have nothing to worry about and should be comfortable sharing it.

I explained what I meant above, but you still didn't answer my specific question. If I back up my wallet to the cloud in any form, then it is no longer self-custodial because the cloud storage service provider has access to it like Dropbox?

The wallet is closed-source. No one knows what they back up and how. No one can check what the code does. They can only decide if they want to trust Tether or not.

As I said this is nothing new, you need to ask the whole shitcoin space first and not Tether only.

This discussion is not about the entire shitcoin or altcoin space or other altcoin wallets. It's about Tether and the Tether Wallet.

[ABCbits]

It looks good, but what is the point of even trying it out if so many red flags spin around it?

I bet few people would assume their USDT would be safer it they store it on wallet created by Tether (company behind).

They do not do anything relating to freezing on their own will, they are following regulations and issue freezes only when they need to.

FWIW, it's common to see people angry at an exchange for freeze their coin with claim following regulation. Sometimes it's because their system is very strict/paranoid, but such reason also misused to steal people's coin by never unfreezing user's coin even after you send document. For reference, Freewallet is known to doing the latter for many years.

[Dogedegen]

I explained what I meant above, but you still didn't answer my specific question. If I back up my wallet to the cloud in any form, then it is no longer self-custodial because the cloud storage service provider has access to it like Dropbox?

From the limited info that we know about the wallet, yes, but I explained why it depends on the factors that I've mentioned.
So don't expect a simple "yes" or "no" answer to this.

What I'm saying is, my reply is about categorizing it as a "Web Wallet", being self-custodial or custodial depends on those factors.

Why? How is the backup solution relevant to the question to who has custody of my wallet if it is encrypted? I can back up my wallet as long as it is encrypted in any way that I want to, that won't change that I am the only person who has custody to it. To claim that an Electrum wallet that is backed up to the cloud this way stops being self-custodial is just silly.. How exactly do they have custody of my wallet? I can understand your point fine if we talk about a wallet that is not encrypted or a plain text seed phrase, but when it is encrypted I can't. People may not like the cloud as a back up solution, they may rightfully say that it is insecure too, but that doesn't change the definition of things or suddenly give custody in impossible scenarios.

Can you explain how it is so in this scenario why it would stop being self-custodial if that is what you're trying to say? I know we are not talking about this specific wallet anymore in particular but it is a bit relevant until they answer in their documentation some more details about exactly how it is stored.

How do you know that it’s false? I’m starting to suspect that you’re one of them.

Nice you proceed to attack me personally I question false opinions and assumptions in this thread.

The wallet is closed-source. No one knows what they back up and how. No one can check what the code does. They can only decide if they want to trust Tether or not.

You missed my point, next time consider spending more time reading before you write a reply because it is not related to the question that I have posed. It has nothing to do with the Tether wallet.

As I said this is nothing new, you need to ask the whole shitcoin space first and not Tether only.

This discussion is not about the entire shitcoin or altcoin space or other altcoin wallets. It's about Tether and the Tether Wallet.

Instead of admitting that you are wrong to be surprised, you decide to be rude for no good reason. This is not a new feature. If you have failed to understand where it comes from and why, the problem is on you for being outdated. The concept is not new and I can remember it being at least a couple of years old and maybe even longer. And it is going to spread more whether you like it or not.

FWIW, it's common to see people angry at an exchange for freeze their coin with claim following regulation. Sometimes it's because their system is very strict/paranoid, but such reason also misused to steal people's coin by never unfreezing user's coin even after you send document. For reference, Freewallet is known to doing the latter for many years.

There are cases where companies abuse these rules that is not disputable, but to claim that very reputable and extremely rich companies are doing this because they want to is at best just childish. It shows inexperience with topics relating to business and regulations.

Why would anyone want to do something as a business that only hurts them? Why would someone who owns billions of dollars and is extremely profitable selectively try to scam someone out of $50 000 or $5m? It does not add up as it does not make logical or business sense. Because of that we can't group everyone who ever does any kind of freezing together. We must separate legal and reputable entities from those that selectively scam like some swap services have been doing in the last couple of years. Do people not know what happens to an regulated company like Coinbase or Tether in the US if they refuse to comply with a freezing order? They may not even agree with the order, but why would they spend millions of dollars in legal fees to fight in favor of some random customer? Maybe the people who are responding do not even live in the US or know its laws, so they are just making stuff up? That would explain where they get these ideas..

[PrivacyG]

This wallet kind of reminds me of the old Bread wallet design.  Although I am pretty sure Bread wallet was open source and non custodial.  It looks good, but what is the point of even trying it out if so many red flags spin around it?  Personal email addresses of future hundreds of thousands of people being linked to an encrypted seed, it does not sound like a good idea at all.  It tries to reinvent the wheel in a dangerous way.

As I said this is nothing new, you need to ask the whole shitcoin space first and not Tether only.

Shit Coin enjoyers purchase a Cryptocurrency nobody has heard of fully trusting the team behind it and the plans they have or may not have for it.  That is their 'Shit' to handle.  Tether is launching a Cryptocurrency Wallet ADVERTISED as a 'Non Custodial' and the first thing it asks you for is your personal email address.  This is misleading people with a nice, attractive design.

I do not care what the Shit Coin community does, I do care however when a corporation that owns a freeze trigger for the funds of their users comes up with a Wallet presented in a 'Non Custodial' way misleading new Bitcoiners into believing this is what a Non Custodial looks like.

Why would anyone want to do something as a business that only hurts them? Why would someone who owns billions of dollars and is extremely profitable selectively try to scam someone out of $50 000 or $5m? It does not add up as it does not make logical or business sense.

You sound like the kind of person who would lose over 1 million Dollars worth of Bitcoin downloading a fake Sparrow Wallet off the Apple App Store, or the kind of Centralized Exchange customer who has not completed Know Your Customer for years as it was never required and cries out loud when the Exchange suddenly does not let you withdraw without your ID, like MEXC currently does.

Things like this have been happening for years.  Many years.  Reaching billions of Dollars does not make you non evil in any way.  In fact.  I would argue the exact opposite, where there is a lot of money there is a lot of evil.

[Dogedegen]

Shit Coin enjoyers purchase a Cryptocurrency nobody has heard of fully trusting the team behind it and the plans they have or may not have for it.  That is their 'Shit' to handle.  Tether is launching a Cryptocurrency Wallet ADVERTISED as a 'Non Custodial' and the first thing it asks you for is your personal email address.  This is misleading people with a nice, attractive design.

I do not care what the Shit Coin community does, I do care however when a corporation that owns a freeze trigger for the funds of their users comes up with a Wallet presented in a 'Non Custodial' way misleading new Bitcoiners into believing this is what a Non Custodial looks like.

None of that changes the fact that this is not a new feature, and it is coming to more wallets. Persisting in error will not lead this to go away. A balanced and proper analysis of issues and benefits of something like this could lead to educating people against these kind of solutions at least those that do not need them. The wrongful and biased treatment of situations that more resembles an echo chamber is increasingly leading many users towards solutions that are not good for them. You are not doing anybody favors with this while you may believe that you are. We do not even know what exactly the non custodial is supposed to mean or whether it is accurate at all as the docs are incomplete, but here you are arguing with a hundred assumptions.

Why would anyone want to do something as a business that only hurts them? Why would someone who owns billions of dollars and is extremely profitable selectively try to scam someone out of $50 000 or $5m? It does not add up as it does not make logical or business sense.

You sound like the kind of person who would lose over 1 million Dollars worth of Bitcoin downloading a fake Sparrow Wallet off the Apple App Store, or the kind of Centralized Exchange customer who has not completed Know Your Customer for years as it was never required and cries out loud when the Exchange suddenly does not let you withdraw without your ID, like MEXC currently does.

Things like this have been happening for years.  Many years.  Reaching billions of Dollars does not make you non evil in any way.  In fact.  I would argue the exact opposite, where there is a lot of money there is a lot of evil.

Right, so instead of finding data that would disprove my argument you resort to personal attacks. The fact is, Tether is not selectively scamming poor people such as yourself and neither is any big business that deals in the billions range. They are established companies that have to comply with strict regulations and sometimes over compliance saves them for huge fines. Focus on the core argument instead of inventing all kinds of nonsense and personal attacks. Comparing Tether to MEXC, amazing misinformation.

https://yourcryptolibrary.com/news/how-50-employees-generate-200m-each-what-makes-tether-the-most-profitable-crypto-company-in-2024/

Here’s the breakdown:
    U.S. Treasury Bills: $84.5 billion
    Overnight Reverse Repo Agreements: $12.5 billion
    Money Market Funds: $6.4 billion
    Bitcoin Holdings: $4.7 billion
    Physical Gold: $4.9 billion
    Secured Loans: $6.7 billion
    Other Investments: $3.7 billion
    Additional smaller holdings in cash, non-US Treasury bills, and corporate bonds

Yeah you can compare this to MEXC and some swap service that selectively scams users for $5000.....  

Do people not know what happens to an regulated company like Coinbase or Tether in the US if they refuse to comply with a freezing order? They may not even agree with the order, but why would they spend millions of dollars in legal fees to fight in favor of some random customer? Maybe the people who are responding do not even live in the US or know its laws, so they are just making stuff up? That would explain where they get these ideas..

As is being demonstrated here, the users that are inventing all sorts of argument do not know how regulations work, nor have they ever owned a business that had to comply with any kind of serious regulations. These companies depending on the scale and type of business have to build a huge team of employees to only work on compliance. I guess they just do that because they like doing it, it is definitely not because they have no other choice. Who would not want to spend millions and millions of dollars per year on something that you don't have to do?  

[salad daging]

Tether.wallet is now doing a giveaway/faucet to get Lightning network instant sats for $0.10. https://x.com/tetherwallet/status/2049384893067493814

This seems to encourage many people to use the wallet, so with the faucet many people will install this wallet.

I myself am not interested at all.

[Dogedegen]

Tether.wallet is now doing a giveaway/faucet to get Lightning network instant sats for $0.10. https://x.com/tetherwallet/status/2049384893067493814

This seems to encourage many people to use the wallet, so with the faucet many people will install this wallet.

I myself am not interested at all.

Well putting the various concerns about the wallet or the company aside, I don't think that this will lead to many people installing the wallet unless you are being sarcastic. This amount of money is nothing for people in rich countries but also for those in poor countries. Although I am sure there will be people who will try to abuse the faucet in some way, as there always were in the past. There is no way to completely prevent abuse, they can only slow it down and make it more complex which I could guess is one of the reasons why it is only $0.1. The company is so rich that they could easily give out $1 to millions of users and would not feel it all, so the amount could be seen as a deterrent against abuse.

Putting that part aside, I do think that this could be a nice way to show someone the usability of Lightning if they have not had the experience yet. I keep getting surprised how many people have never had a lightning wallet or how much misinformation they write against lightning. In the past few years I have been using it, it has basically worked perfectly. So this could work as a way to get them a bit familiar with that as an entry, and I hope that they pick a better wallet to use LN after.

[PrivacyG]

We do not even know what exactly the non custodial is supposed to mean or whether it is accurate at all as the docs are incomplete, but here you are arguing with a hundred assumptions.

Prove me wrong but there is one single meaning for 'non custodial' and it is definitely not linking your Cryptocurrencies to your email account.

Anyway.  Yes, we do not know much until the docs are complete.  And for that reason and for others too, such as despising Tether who you would also probably despise if they ever end up in a rough collapse taking down a lot of the market with it, and for reasons like despising Tether for going against what Bitcoin stood for and making it possible to censor transactions and seize money, I will continue to advice anyone NOT to use Tether Wallet.

If the wallet ends up being fully open sourced and the claims of 'non custodial' are legitimate, I would of course change my mind.  Until then, why risk it and why tell others that what they are doing is 'inevitable' as if this is the future we have to get used to?  I will not get used to it.  I will never use a wallet that does any extra storage things than a simplistic Bitcoin wallet would.  Like cloud backups, email recovery and other B S.  Until they prove their claims, I will assume anything because let us be real, anything can happen and anything can be real.

Right, so instead of finding data that would disprove my argument you resort to personal attacks. The fact is, Tether is not selectively scamming poor people such as yourself and neither is any big business that deals in the billions range. They are established companies that have to comply with strict regulations and sometimes over compliance saves them for huge fines. Focus on the core argument instead of inventing all kinds of nonsense and personal attacks. Comparing Tether to MEXC, amazing misinformation.

That was not meant to be a personal attack.  I actually believe what I said, that you do sound like the kind of person to get selectively scammed.  You trust something only due to its value, it sounds naive.  A valuation of Billions of Dollars does not make me trust them or any other company more than I would trust an unknown one.  People are people.  Greed is greed.  I do not necessarily expect Tether to do the exact thing MEXC or FreeWallet did, I am stating that there is a LONG history of 'good people' becoming bad people all of a sudden and for this reason, this wallet should not even be taken into consideration.

Hell.  It could be something catastrophic caused by a disaster as simplistic as a 'they hacked us!'.  It does not even have to be THEM doing any thing bad, even if I would argue what they are doing is trying to bring the herd around their products to attract more people to their Shit Coin which only makes more damage in the longer term as people get used to this simple 'enter your email' method.  Tell me this is to make Bitcoin better, I would never believe it.  It may be to fill their pockets up with more money, it may be to get more 'traditional' Bitcoin users to sniff a little bit of the Tether products but it is not in our benefit at all.

Why is it a misinformation to compare Tether with MEXC?  I did not say their valuation was the same.  Do you actually believe it is better to blindly trust a third party than it is to not trust any unless claims are verifiable and provable, which implicitly makes it trustless?  Because if you do, that is what I would call misinformation.

[UmerIdrees]

This is just another close wallet that I can not use.

Just 5 downloads on Playstore since since 5 days ago that it was listed on Playstore. I may still test the wallet but not being open source discouraged me already.

If there are more downloads, I will test it, but I can not use it.

So by now it has almost 10K downloads.


Is this the official wallet from Tether?  I need proof for that. And if it is a non-custodial wallet, then it's not worth using it. I would be better off keeping my USDT in an Unstoppable Wallet instead and feel more secure. By the way, it has XAU₮, maybe that's another reason why people using this wallet as they want to keep digital gold in personal wallets and not on exchanges.

[sergiorus]

 

This is just another close wallet that I can not use.

Just 5 downloads on Playstore since since 5 days ago that it was listed on Playstore. I may still test the wallet but not being open source discouraged me already.

If there are more downloads, I will test it, but I can not use it.

So by now it has almost 10K downloads.


Is this the official wallet from Tether?  I need proof for that. And if it is a non-custodial wallet, then it's not worth using it. I would be better off keeping my USDT in an Unstoppable Wallet instead and feel more secure. By the way, it has XAU₮, maybe that's another reason why people using this wallet as they want to keep digital gold in personal wallets and not on exchanges.

It is relatively new and not well known yet and moreover it has a very specific usecase - only BTC and Tether products, so no Solana, no BSC, Base and other trendy chains for memecoins. Can't even store ETH on there. Can't really expect it to be popular.

As for authenticity, you can find the links to download at Tether's official website tether(dot)io and its social media pages.

[retreat]

So by now it has almost 10K downloads.

Seeing that they are doing a giveaway on X by just downloading their wallet, it is likely that most of those who download it are just to get free sats.

Is this the official wallet from Tether?  I need proof for that. And if it is a non-custodial wallet, then it's not worth using it. I would be better off keeping my USDT in an Unstoppable Wallet instead and feel more secure. By the way, it has XAU₮, maybe that's another reason why people using this wallet as they want to keep digital gold in personal wallets and not on exchanges.

That's Tether's official wallet. If you go to their website, wallet.tether.io, you'll see that it's their wallet. And yes, the main purpose of this wallet is to be able to manage USD₮, USA₮, XAU₮, and Bitcoin, but with so many odd things about this wallet, I recommend avoiding this wallet.

[Dogedegen]

Prove me wrong but there is one single meaning for 'non custodial' and it is definitely not linking your Cryptocurrencies to your email account.

There are ways in which you could link a non custodial wallet to an email account without compromising the type of wallet. It may not be the case here, but we have to be careful to make generalizations.

Anyway.  Yes, we do not know much until the docs are complete.  And for that reason and for others too, such as despising Tether who you would also probably despise if they ever end up in a rough collapse taking down a lot of the market with it, and for reasons like despising Tether for going against what Bitcoin stood for and making it possible to censor transactions and seize money, I will continue to advice anyone NOT to use Tether Wallet.

People who believe that fell for basic FUD from previous cycles, that should not be a badge of achievement it should be something to be ashamed of. Tether is not any worse than what we already have and was inevitably going to come. If that is what people want even if they are acting in error someone is going to provide it, that is how a market functions. Why don't you blame the people that want to use Tether instead of Bitcoin instead of blaming Tether for existing?

If the wallet ends up being fully open sourced and the claims of 'non custodial' are legitimate, I would of course change my mind.  

That is fair.

Until then, why risk it and why tell others that what they are doing is 'inevitable' as if this is the future we have to get used to?  I will not get used to it.  

It is a development trend, that was my whole point. I never said it is a good thing, but denial that it is a trend or throwing unimportant information into contrary positions by some users is what caused that statement.

That was not meant to be a personal attack.  I actually believe what I said, that you do sound like the kind of person to get selectively scammed.  You trust something only due to its value, it sounds naive.  A valuation of Billions of Dollars does not make me trust them or any other company more than I would trust an unknown one.  People are people.  Greed is greed.  I do not necessarily expect Tether to do the exact thing MEXC or FreeWallet did, I am stating that there is a LONG history of 'good people' becoming bad people all of a sudden and for this reason, this wallet should not even be taken into consideration.

Even if you honestly believe that about me that is still an ad hominem because it does not have anything to do with the argument that I was proposing. If something is a personal attack or not does not depend on whether the person who is doing it believes their own words.

Hell.  It could be something catastrophic caused by a disaster as simplistic as a 'they hacked us!'.  It does not even have to be THEM doing any thing bad, even if I would argue what they are doing is trying to bring the herd around their products to attract more people to their Shit Coin which only makes more damage in the longer term as people get used to this simple 'enter your email' method.  Tell me this is to make Bitcoin better, I would never believe it.  It may be to fill their pockets up with more money, it may be to get more 'traditional' Bitcoin users to sniff a little bit of the Tether products but it is not in our benefit at all.

You have a false understanding of corporations. Corporations act on incentives and self-interest at least well run corporations. We live in a very flawed system where many incentives are wrong, and at times these incentives will align with what greed would look like but that does not mean that the decisions were driven by greed. Companies that are run by greed often ruin themselves in short periods of times even small ones like gambling companies in this space. So incentives that govern corporations will often align with actions that are self-interested, but the motivation behind those decisions is simply rational risk management. When you have billions in assets and a lot of revenue, the incentives behind this structure make you want to keep that trust and avoid any risky mistakes. Randomly seizing small amount of money by some users that are just a number in a database would be terribly irrational compared to the downside risk to the whole business. That was my original argument why Tether is not going to do this and that claiming that they will is wrong. Some shady or random casino or swap service has a much larger incentive to do this and they regularly have it in the bast because their downside is nothing compared to Tether's downside.

Why is it a misinformation to compare Tether with MEXC?  I did not say their valuation was the same.  Do you actually believe it is better to blindly trust a third party than it is to not trust any unless claims are verifiable and provable, which implicitly makes it trustless?  Because if you do, that is what I would call misinformation.

See now you do a straw man here, I never made such a claim or can such a claim be derived from my statement. I said that it is not possible to compare Tether with MEXC to make a case that they are similar and have demonstrated with the financial argument why this is. You can't do that, it is like claiming Apple and some Chinese manufacturer that sells 500 000 phones per year are the same and would act the same under similar situations. That is always false. No scale or valuation will turn an entity trustless as you use the word, but they will completely change the incentives and probabilities of doing harm when the opportunity appears. Comparing Tether to smaller platforms like MEXC is not accurate because of the risk setup. I do not claim that large corporations do not make mistakes or will not make mistakes, I claim that the incentive structure behind such a corporation make catastrophic non-profitable behaviors extremely unlikely. You can always dismiss this line of arguments with the correct claims that is still possible even if it is extremely unlikely, but that would be arguing in bad faith because of bias against certain entities or types of companies.  

[NeuroticFish]

It tries to reinvent the wheel in a dangerous way.

It's imho not about reinventing the wheel. It's about gathering an user base for whatever they plan next - exchange, advertising, name it.
I didn't install it, but I've noticed on crypto-twitter quite some hype about this wallet and some free sats they give.
I doubt they'd make a free wallet and give money for free without a plan to get a return of investment and profit too.

[sergiorus]

It tries to reinvent the wheel in a dangerous way.

It's imho not about reinventing the wheel. It's about gathering an user base for whatever they plan next - exchange, advertising, name it.
I didn't install it, but I've noticed on crypto-twitter quite some hype about this wallet and some free sats they give.
I doubt they'd make a free wallet and give money for free without a plan to get a return of investment and profit too.

Clearly plans for some kind of neo-bank/crypto-bank.

The absense of any coins other than BTC and Tether products plus no gas fees hints they target the audience that is unbanked or wants to be unbanked but can't really be bothered with all that convoluted crypto stuff.

[internetional]

It is relatively new and not well known yet and moreover it has a very specific usecase - only BTC and Tether products, so no Solana, no BSC, Base and other trendy chains for memecoins. Can't even store ETH on there. Can't really expect it to be popular.

How many people use ETH, and how many use Tether tokens? It seems to me that the scales are incomparable. The potential for real-world use cases is much greater for Tether tokens than for ETH. This is why the wallet could become popular.

On the other hand, for many use cases, this wallet is unnecessary, inconvenient, or even unsuitable (for now).