Wallet reviews should explain the custody job, not hide it.
Pledge tracks wallets — it does not score them. Every wallet is reviewed against the same key-control framework, and the reviews are designed to reveal tradeoffs, not declare one universal best wallet.
Why trust this view
What shapes a wallet review
Recovery safety
We look for clear backup paths, recovery contacts, inheritance options, emergency kits, and whether the recovery design can survive device loss without handing unilateral control to a provider.
Key control
We check whether signing is single-sig, multisig, hardware-signer based, or assisted multisig, and whether the user can understand who can or cannot move funds.
Ease of use
We weigh practical setup burden, mobile access, guided onboarding, and whether the product fits smaller everyday balances or demands advanced operational skill.
Hardware support
We look for dedicated signing devices, airgapped workflows, PSBT compatibility, QR or microSD flows, and coordinator-wallet compatibility.
Privacy tooling
We look for open tooling, coin control, Tor, descriptors, PSBT flows, and other controls that matter to users who want deeper self-custody and privacy posture.
Why wallets do not get a Pledge score.
No single number
Custody fit depends on your threat model, balance size, and operational skill. Collapsing that into one rating would hide the tradeoffs the reviews exist to surface.
Evidence states instead
Each wallet carries an evidence-quality state (High or Medium) and a public source list, so you can see how well-documented a claim is before trusting it.
Fit over rank
Profiles name the best-fit user, the “slow down if” case, and the main risk — read those against your own situation instead of looking for a winner.