Ledger’s Multisig Update Draws Crypto Backlash Over Fees and Privacy Concerns

• Ledger Multisig Feature: Allows multiple signers to verify transactions securely without third-party tools.

• The update coincides with the launch of the Nano Gen5 device and a revamped wallet app, enhancing user interface but excluding older models like the Nano S.

• Backlash centers on new fees—$10 flat for crypto transfers and 0.05% for tokens—viewed as a departure from Ledger’s community-focused roots, with over 6 million units sold historically.

Discover Ledger’s controversial multisig feature rollout and community backlash. Explore fees, new hardware, and privacy concerns in this 2025 update for secure crypto storage.

What is Ledger’s New Multisig Feature?

Ledger’s multisig feature is an integrated system that lets multiple users sign and verify cryptocurrency transactions directly through the company’s secure backend, eliminating the need for external open-source tools. Released in 2025 alongside the Nano Gen5 hardware wallet and an updated app, it aims to simplify multisig processes while adding new transaction fees. This development has drawn significant attention for both its innovations and the resulting user discontent.

How Do the Fees in Ledger’s Multisig Update Affect Users?

The introduction of fees marks a shift for Ledger, traditionally known for hardware-focused security without ongoing charges. Users now face a $10 flat fee for standard cryptocurrency transfers and a 0.05% variable fee for token movements, on top of network costs, as outlined in Ledger’s FAQ section. This “Transaction Fee” covers the company’s facilitation of secure access, but critics argue it transforms essential security tools into a revenue model.

Security researcher Pcaversaccio from SEAL-911 has voiced strong opposition, stating that the model treats multisig users as “cash cows” and positions Ledger as a “single choke point” for the ecosystem. This contradicts the cypherpunk ethos of decentralization that Ledger once embodied. Developers like Sarnavo from the Avalanche ecosystem echo this frustration, highlighting the closed-source nature of the user interface, which prevents verification of transaction data flows or backend storage practices.

Privacy concerns amplify the issue, with an undisclosed transaction coordination service raising questions about data handling. Ledger’s approach, while streamlining operations, leaves users without transparency on how their information is managed, potentially undermining trust in a space built on self-sovereignty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Changes Does Ledger’s Multisig Feature Bring to Hardware Wallet Users?

Ledger’s multisig feature integrates multi-signature approvals into its ecosystem, allowing groups to securely manage funds without relying on tools like Specter or Sparrow. It processes verifications via Ledger’s backend but introduces fees, which has led to debates on accessibility for everyday users handling shared wallets.

Why Is the Crypto Community Reacting Negatively to Ledger’s Update?

The crypto community is upset due to the per-transaction fees and lack of openness in the system’s design. Developers criticize it for creating dependencies on a corporate backend, moving away from open-source alternatives and potentially compromising privacy through unverified data servers.

Key Takeaways

• Enhanced Security Integration: The multisig feature simplifies multi-party transactions by handling them in-house, reducing reliance on external software.
• Fee Structure Concerns: New charges of $10 per crypto transfer and 0.05% for tokens are seen as profit-oriented, clashing with Ledger’s established reputation.
• Hardware Advancements: The Nano Gen5, priced at $179, introduces E-Ink displays, Bluetooth 5.2, and AI-era identity tools, but older devices like the Nano S are unsupported.

Conclusion

Ledger’s multisig feature represents a bold step toward centralized efficiency in hardware wallet security, yet the accompanying fees and privacy opacity have ignited backlash from developers and users alike. As the company, with over 6 million devices sold and billions in assets protected, navigates this criticism, the crypto community watches closely for signs of greater transparency. Staying informed on such updates is crucial for users prioritizing secure, decentralized storage—consider evaluating your wallet options to align with evolving industry standards.

Ledger, a leading provider of cryptocurrency hardware wallets, unveiled its multisig feature in a move aimed at bolstering collaborative transaction security. This update, however, has not been without controversy, as it introduces transaction-based fees for the first time in the company’s history. The rollout occurred alongside the debut of the Nano Gen5 device and a comprehensive overhaul of the Ledger Wallet app, which supersedes the previous Ledger Live interface.

The core of the multisig functionality lies in its ability to facilitate multi-signature approvals through Ledger’s proprietary backend. This means that transactions involving multiple parties can be signed and verified without the need for independent, third-party applications. In the past, users turned to open-source solutions such as Specter or Sparrow to achieve similar results with Ledger devices. These tools were freely available, modifiable, and aligned with the open principles of the blockchain space.

Under the new system, Ledger imposes what it calls a “Multisig Fee” in addition to standard blockchain network fees. This breaks down to a fixed $10 charge for basic cryptocurrency transfers and a percentage-based 0.05% for token operations. According to Ledger’s official FAQ, these fees compensate for the “secured and facilitated access” provided by the company’s infrastructure. While this may streamline operations for some, it has provoked sharp reactions from the developer and security communities.

Prominent voices in the field have labeled the change as a corporate pivot away from Ledger’s foundational ideals. Pcaversaccio, a security researcher affiliated with SEAL-911, remarked that the fee model effectively monetizes multisig users, turning them into reliable income sources. He further critiqued it as establishing Ledger as a centralized bottleneck in the crypto flow, which undermines the decentralized spirit that originally drew users to the brand.

Sarnavo, a developer within the Avalanche network, captured the broader sentiment by noting the widespread frustration across the ecosystem. He pointed to several red flags, including the proprietary user interface that obscures visibility into transaction signing processes, data transmission, and server-side storage. Without open-source code, users cannot independently audit these elements, fostering doubts about reliability and security.

Another layer of concern involves a concealed service for coordinating multisig signatures. Ledger has not specified the nature of data processed by this server, leaving privacy advocates uneasy about potential exposure risks. This opacity stands in stark contrast to the transparency expected in cryptocurrency tools.

The multisig rollout also incorporates clear signing capabilities on newer devices, converting intricate transaction details into human-readable formats. Unfortunately, legacy hardware like the original Nano S falls short due to insufficient memory, meaning owners of these units will miss out on the enhancements. This exclusion highlights a growing divide between Ledger’s evolving product line and its earlier, more affordable offerings.

Complementing the software updates is the Nano Gen5, Ledger’s latest hardware innovation priced at $179—more than triple the original $59 cost of the Nano S. The company positions this device not merely as a wallet but as a versatile signer for transactions and identity verification, tailored for an era influenced by artificial intelligence. Key upgrades include an E-Ink touchscreen for better visibility, Bluetooth 5.2 for wireless connectivity, USB-C ports, and advanced security chips to fortify protection against emerging threats.

Ledger’s track record is impressive, with over 6 million units distributed worldwide, safeguarding billions in digital assets for countless users. Despite the vocal backlash, the company has yet to issue formal statements addressing the concerns. This silence may fuel ongoing discussions about balancing innovation with user trust in the competitive hardware wallet market.

From a broader perspective, this development underscores the tensions within the crypto industry between corporate growth and community values. As hardware solutions like Ledger’s evolve to meet demands for multi-asset support and user-friendly interfaces, the emphasis on fees and closed systems could influence user adoption. Experts recommend that individuals assess their security needs carefully, weighing the benefits of integrated features against potential costs and privacy trade-offs.

In terms of market impact, Ledger’s move might encourage competitors to refine their offerings, perhaps leaning more toward open-source integrations to capture dissatisfied users. For now, the multisig feature serves as a case study in how established players adapt—or fail to adapt—to the nuanced expectations of a decentralized audience.