2025-12-26 15:21:39

Recently, there has been an interesting phenomenon—after a well-known wallet extension updated its version, it actually became a source of risk. Users, during routine upgrades and transaction signing, could potentially have their most sensitive information, such as seed phrases, exposed.

This situation reflects a fundamental contradiction in software wallets: whether to upgrade or not is a dilemma. Not upgrading means risking known vulnerabilities in the old version; upgrading, on the other hand, might introduce new issues during the iteration process. In the end, users are caught in the middle, feeling helpless.

Looking deeper, the root of this dilemma still stems from the old problem of single-point trust. Users rely entirely on one wallet application, one development team, and a single upgrade mechanism—if any link in this chain fails, the security of their entire assets could be compromised.

For token holders, this is not just a technical issue but a practical reminder: no matter how convenient a tool is, it has its limits. Multi-chain deployment and cold wallet configurations—these well-known practices—remain lifesavers at critical moments.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

gas_guzzler

· 13h ago

I've known for a long time that the software wallet approach has issues, and only now has it been exposed. Honestly, upgrading or not upgrading is a dead end. I trust cold wallets much more. That's why I transferred my large assets to hardware wallets long ago, and keep only some petty cash in software wallets. The dilemma of trusting a single point is indeed frustrating, but how many people are really willing to tinker with multi-chain configurations? How serious does the mnemonic leak have to be? Will it be wiped out directly? I just want to know when they'll admit this vulnerability, or are they going to shift the blame again?

View OriginalReply0

ProxyCollector

· 14h ago

Another show of "Upgrade and get hacked," truly amazing These days, updating wallets is as risky as Russian roulette, and mnemonic phrases can be exposed in the process, outrageous The trust in single points of failure is a pit that should have been abandoned long ago, yet we keep falling into it repeatedly Cold wallets are really worth it, not bragging

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationAlert

· 14h ago

The moment my mnemonic phrase was exposed, I knew that the wallet was just a temporary stopover; the real home must be a hardware wallet. --- Another upgrade, another pit. When will this routine ever change? I'm really exhausted. --- Single point trust? We're just forced to gamble on character, with no other options. --- I've already set up cold wallets long ago. Only idle funds dare to be stored in soft wallets. You need to learn risk diversification. --- Every time I see this kind of news, I feel like a test subject. Whether to update or not, it's all a trap. --- Actually, this is the real state of Web3 now. Convenience and risk are truly twin brothers. --- Multi-chain deployment is indeed possible, but to be honest, most people can't do it so meticulously. We'll just go with the flow.

View OriginalReply0

GasWaster69

· 14h ago

Here comes another tragedy of "upgrading leads to being attacked," the wallet team is really incredible. --- The single-point trust system has long needed to be fixed. Why do some people keep walking into the gunfire? --- I just want to ask, what is everyone's mindset now that they use this wallet? Do you still dare to click upgrade? Haha --- Cold wallets really don't lie; hot wallets are just like this. --- Leakage of seed phrases is a social death-level mistake. Product managers should reflect on this. --- This wave of issues has dealt a fatal blow to the trust in the development team. No wonder everyone is turning to self-custody. --- Can we stop always blaming the users? The development team should at least ensure quality.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoWageSlave

· 14h ago

The upgrade and update end up digging a hole; I've seen this trick too many times, it's really outrageous. That's why I stopped using just one wallet long ago. Diversifying risk is the real key. Single-point trust is indeed a tumor; if the development team has an issue, everything is doomed. Cold wallets are still necessary; putting large assets in software wallets is just gambling on luck.

View OriginalReply0

degenwhisperer

· 14h ago

Damn, it's the same old story. Single-point trust is really poison. I still trust cold wallets more.

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 14h ago

That's why I absolutely refuse to put large holdings in my wallet; diversifying risk is really not an outdated topic. --- Same old story, upgrading is dead, not upgrading is dead, the development team should take the blame. --- Trust in a single point has long been a topic for reflection; blame myself for being lazy. --- Cold wallets are really comfortable to lie around with, hot wallets are playing with fire. --- Mnemonic phrase exposed? Damn, this is a big deal, changing wallets is not. --- It's called iteration in a nice way, but in a harsh way, it's laying mines. How can users win? --- Multi-chain configuration, isn't that obvious? But most people still go all-in on one wallet. --- This wave of update failures is truly outrageous; the development team should be held responsible. --- Convenience and security are always at odds; it's a trade-off, my friend. --- I should have set up my own node early on to avoid being messed with by these wallet providers.

View OriginalReply0