...It turns out such a hardware wallet was in the works, but the company decided to scrap the project, fearing the kind of hacks that have recently hit the industry...
That's a weird decision. Using that logic, there should no longer be any open-source software because AI could be prompted to find vulnerabilities in the code and abuse it. There is probably more to this story than just them being afraid of getting hacked.
Well, we can only guess at the true reasons for halting production. But you (just like @ABCbits) are right: the reason might be something entirely different from the stated fear of a potential hack.
I suspect they have problem, such as design, production or cost issue. So they use recent hacks as convenient excuse that some average people may believe.
If we use fear as a pretext, then we should stop producing everything worldwide (much like halting the manufacture of cars out of fear of accidents).
What caught my attention in this news was the following:
~80% of the (pre-)purchases for this HW-device were made on the blockchain, and refunds will be issued in USDC. Many people wonder: what is the actual use case for blockchain? Well, here it is: any refund for a purchase is sent directly back to the buyer’s original address. There’s no need for any intermediaries (according to the good old buyer-seller concept), such as banks, no red tape, no waiting around - just click a button, and you get your refund.
What if I don't want the refund to be sent to the same address I paid from? What if the address belongs to an exchange or instant swaps platform? What if it belongs to someone else who paid it for me? Etc., etc.
Users should always be allowed to select how to be refunded. Automatic refunds are not a good idea.
You didn't quite understand me. I wasn't referring to an automatic refund, but rather the option for a refund to be issued directly from the "seller" to the "buyer" in the form of specific cryptocurrencies. Naturally, the "buyer" should have the ability to specify a different address (and currency - XMR, for example
) for the refund. Granted, this places an additional burden on the "seller", as they would have to manually verify the details (in case the refund address has been changed) and then process the payment. In that sense, an automatic refund is certainly more convenient for the "seller". However, it would be possible to create an algorithm that reviews "user" requests to change their refund address and then adds them to a general "pool" for automatic refund processing.
What if I don't want the refund to be sent to the same address I paid from? What if the address belongs to an exchange or instant swaps platform? What if it belongs to someone else who paid it for me? Etc., etc.
Users should always be allowed to select how to be refunded. Automatic refunds are not a good idea.
Since they are closing down because of fear of hack are they not also looking at the possibility that the address which initially sent the funds for the purchase could have been under attack already?
I suspect this doesn't really concern them much anymore, since the project has been closed; they just want to get buyer's pre-order funds back as quickly as possible and put an end to this whole affair.
What will happen to users who purchased using credit/debit cards
I think they’ll return it in the traditional way. No, not a courier with cash
- just a standard bank transfer to the buyer’s account \ card.
While I can’t think of a better way to actually get users refund to get to them I am confident that many wouldn’t get this refund as it could even land on some of the exchanges that have recently change addresses.
So, use your own wallets \ addresses, rather than exchanges.
I suspect they have problem, such as design, production or cost issue. So they use recent hacks as convenient excuse that some average people may believe.
Definitely agree with you because they have been numerous platforms closing down of recent due to lack of funding, I read that this particular shutdown was because the Sui foundation themselves withdraw their backing due to hardware wallet supply chain attacks recently which is still a lame excuse for me.
Whether it’s an excuse or not, it needs to be framed as a "nice fairy tale" to avoid any reputational damage to the project as a whole. It’s always better to pin the blame on a "bad situation in the industry" than to admit, "we messed up".
Everybody is dying doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be innovations to make life easy for the living again
Exactly.
