Ledger, a prominent hardware wallet manufacturer, is facing sharp criticism from cryptocurrency users and developers after introducing transaction fees for a new multisignature security feature and excluding its widely adopted Nano S device. The company’s decision has ignited a debate over monetizing security layers and its commitment to the decentralized ethos of the crypto community.
The controversy stems from the new multisignature function, launched alongside the Nano Gen5 hardware wallet and a redesigned Ledger Wallet application. This feature, designed to enhance transaction security by requiring multiple approvals, now comes with associated costs.
Users must pay USD $10 for standard transfers and an additional 0.05% for ERC-20 token transactions, on top of existing network gas fees. Critics argue that charging for a fundamental security enhancement contradicts Ledger’s stated mission to make digital asset self-custody more accessible.
Adding to the confusion, Ledger Chief Technology Officer Charles Guillemet initially posted on X that “Ledger Multisig is free. No additional cost. No complexity.” A day later, Guillemet issued a correction, stating there was a “typographical error” and clarifying that multisig is a paid service, citing infrastructure and auditing costs as justification.
The community reaction has been swift and largely negative. “Pcaversaccio,” a security researcher with SEAL-911, characterized the move as a “corporate cash cow strategy” that deviates from the company’s cypherpunk origins.
Developer “Sarnavo” from the Avalanche ecosystem noted that while “clear signing” — a feature allowing users to review transaction details before approval — improves security, it has now effectively been placed behind a “paywall.” Sarnavo also voiced concerns about Ledger’s closed-source interface, which prevents users from verifying how transaction information is transmitted, and the opacity of the company-managed coordination system.
“Monetizing security per transaction is a mistake,” Sarnavo stated.
Further aggravating users is the new service’s incompatibility with the Ledger Nano S, which has been the company’s best-selling model for years. Due to memory limitations, the Nano S cannot support features like clear signing or connect to the new coordination system.
Millions of Nano S owners feel unfairly excluded from security enhancements. “Pcaversaccio” summarized the sentiment, saying Nano S users are “basically censored.”
While some supporters suggest the fees are justifiable for ensuring ongoing audits and enhanced security, a broader consensus among critics is that Ledger is moving away from the ideals of transparency and decentralization that initially propelled its popularity.