It does not matter how fancy or pretty your hardware wallet is. If you simply cannot visually inspect the hardware, whether through removal of the case or being able to see through the case, then your hardware wallet absolutely must not be trusted. Back when a certain hardware wallet launched (not ledger) I informed them of my concern of a cellular modem implant, and my concerns went dismissed with the excuse of "not enough space to fit in it, unrealistic concern". Well turns out I was right. In 2026, cold card proved that firmware that is not actually inspected by people is a problem. And then ledger and Trezor showed that hardware that is not actually inspected is a problem, when both had hardware implants discoverd.

It does not matter even if your hardware wallet has a special "integrity check", that does not matter if the hardware implants simply bypass the need of a modified firmware. It also does not matter if you bought directly from the manufacture or if you had a pretty hologram sticker on the package. Pretty hologram stickers are easy to make fake ones of (trust me, I used to know a guy in the forgery business), tamper evident packages are a joke actually. And even if you bought a hardware wallet from the manufacture that does not protect you from mail interceptions, or rogue employees or supply chain attacks among other things I can think of but need not go into details here.

If you are trusting the hardware without verifying it, you are not living by "don't trust, verify".

Unless you build a hardware wallet yourself, you should only use hardware wallets that you buy if it has the ability to remove from the case or if it has a transparent case. But most hardware wallet manufactures care more about making a device freaking shiny and pretty instead of verifiable.

I propose we retroactively and forward, make physically inspectable a requirement for hardware wallets, discontinue existing ones we cannot physically verify, and no longer buy anything we cannot phsyically verify. Again, "integrity check" is not suitable for replacing hardware check. Integrity check is just for firmware.

Blockstream Jade Classic - excellent at this

Blockstream Jade Plus - cannot trust, and cannot open due to built in battery making a hazard to anyone who might try to dremel it open. Does anyone know of a way to open these?

Foundation Devices - their hardware wallet was maybe the best but they disctontinued it, the passport. Their new device I would argue is not a hardware wallet but even if you disagree with me, you cannot disassemble it either. For foundation devices passports out there, maybe you can dremel it open, it would destroy it in the process though maybe. So, passports even existing ones before they were discontinued, sadly cannot be trusted either.

Bitbox02 (bitcoin only edition) - you can hold a bright flashlight against it and see through the plastic and inspect the hardware. I did not test this with the Nova, just the original Bitbox02 bitcoin only edition, I also don't know if this is the case with the newer ones or the older ones, as the bitboxes I have are a mix of old and new. I can report back once I check unless others beat me to it.

It is sad, that I and maybe even others might have nice hardware wallets that we spent hundreds of dollars on, but it is worth it to no longer trust such that do not meet this new requirement, if it means protecting our stack which is worth more than whatever money we may have wasted on unsuitable hardware wallets.

I am aware some hardware wallets can be built yourself, I'm talking about ones that are pre-made or made by a company.