Hi all,
I'm going to make an argument. I know will get pushback in this crowd, which is exactly why I want it here first: for active self-custody, software isolation can replace the hardware wallet.
Hardware wallets solved a real problem. Keeping your keys off a general-purpose computer full of malware, browser exploits, and clipboard hijackers was the right call, and for deep cold storage it still is. Nobody's disputing that.
But "keep the key off the computer" is a narrower guarantee than people treat it as, and for anyone actually *using* their coins it's showing its limits:
- You're still trusting the supply chain, the firmware, the update process, and the companion app. The secure element is small; the trust surface wrapped around it is not.
- The tiny screen that's supposed to be your source of truth can't meaningfully show you a complex swap, bridge, or contract approval. You end up confirming a blob and hoping.
- For real multi-chain use, the surrounding software still owns everything that matters - chain state, providers and routing, transaction context, swaps, bridges, and the entire UX. The device signs; the software decides what it signs.
So the hardware wallet moves the key one step away, off the computer, and then hands every interesting decision back to software you haven't isolated at all.
Lock.com's thesis is that you get more safety by isolating
inside the wallet than by isolating from the computer.
A hardware wallet isolates the key from the computer. Lock.com tries to isolate the key from the rest of the wallet itself.To you, it's one wallet app. You open one product and use it like any other wallet. Under the hood, the sensitive roles are pulled apart so a compromise in one piece never reaches the seed:
- Treasury — the only component that touches seed-derived material and signs.
- Node — chain state, providers, routing, RPCs, swaps, bridges, all the network-facing work.
- Wallet — the interface you actually click around in.
- Vault daemon — protects the device key on its own, on platforms that let us do it.
This isn't another skin over the same monolith. The part that can sign is small, walled off, and never shares space with the part talking to the internet or drawing the UI.
On post-quantum, I'll be precise, because the term gets abused. Lock.com uses hybrid classical + post-quantum cryptography inside its own architecture and communication layers. It does not make any existing chain quantum-safe - on-chain signatures still come down to whatever cryptography that chain uses, and that's not ours to change.
My claim, plainly: for most people doing active self-custody, this replaces the hardware wallet. For deep cold storage, a dedicated device may still be the right tool. I want to know exactly where you think that line falls.
What I'm after in this thread:
- Wallet builders and auditors: tear into the architecture and the trust boundaries.
- Hardware-wallet users: tell me where a dedicated device still beats this.
- Self-custody users: the frustrations nothing on the market has fixed.
- Anyone who wants to follow along before it's public.
More to come, including the whitepaper and early access details. Site's here if you want it:
https://www.lock.comCheers
Here are a few images from our recent Berlin Blockchain Week event:https://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULhWDd.jpghttps://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULh8zb.jpghttps://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULhKhv.jpghttps://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULhblH.jpghttps://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULhDmg.jpghttps://talkimg.com/images/2026/07/03/ULhOVI.jpg
