Thousands of wallets reviewed, and counting.
Our wallet analysis process requires running 17 separate tests across various categories. This might sound excessive, but our thinking is that every compromised wallet, whether it’s already popular or just released, has the potential to damage bitcoin’s reputation or discourage future users.
Learn more about our methodology.
26 of 6,451 wallets
All tests passed.
The project either does not require binaries or the binaries provided are provably generated from the source provided.
116 of 6,451 wallets
Build issues or source-code issues.
Although some code was provided, we could not verify that the binary provided was generated from it.
1,593 of 6,451 wallets
User only gets an IOU.
The provider might or might not hold BTC on behalf of the user.
180 of 6,451 wallets
User gets a non-transferable IOU.
The provider might or might not hold BTC on behalf of the user but the user is not able to transfer native BTC.
602 of 6,451 wallets
Missing source code.
The provider does not provide all the source code needed to compile the product.
117 of 6,451 wallets
Untrustworthy handling of keys.
The product by design requires the exposure of the keys to other potentially less secure systems or blindly signs on behalf of such less secure systems.
5,038 of 6,451 wallets
Not relevant.
The product is not a BTC wallet, has little to no users, was not updated in a long time or is even defunct.
49 of 6,451 wallets
Fake.
The product is an imitation of a popular product and very likely fraudulent.
851 of 6,451 wallets
Pending review.
Products we know we have to look into.
Support scrutiny.
WalletScrutiny is an independent, non-profit entity that depends on volunteers and donations. Have a thorough understanding of open-source bitcoin and feel like helping us review some wallets? Great. We’d love to hear from you. Don’t know the first thing about code but want to support the people that do? Consider donating today.