Walletbeat Sync 2025-12-18

Manual meeting notes

Attendees

  • polymutex [organizer]
  • REN2140
  • 0xMattmatt
  • PatrickAlphaC

Pre-read

1TS security benchmark: https://github.com/walletbeat/walletbeat/discussions/407

Agenda

  • Progress update vs roadmap doc: https://github.com/walletbeat/walletbeat/blob/beta/governance/roadmap/2025-roadmap.md
  • Next month’s priorities
    • polymutex:
      • Self-hosted node attribute refactor → L1 provider independence
      • Lower time commitment starting next year
    • 0xMattmatt:
      • Transaction legibility:
        • Make detailed output specific to the wallet #403
        • Add message signing tests (includes SIWE) #404
        • OKX and BitGet data #[add issue]
        • More hardware wallets per feedback from PatrickAlphaC
        • Add requiresManufacturerConsent #405
        • Fold in Transaction Simulation #190
        • Wallet test page for transaction legibility #[issue num]
        • User safety attribute refactor/deletion #367
  • Attributes left to implement
    • Orderflow transparency #194
      • Davide (not here due to European timezone not aligning) volunteering to look at this
      • polymutex started, w/ feedback from soispoke: PR #268
    • Duress resistance #389
    • Key material handling #218
    • Hardware wallets!
      • Durability testing: In a freezer, dropped from a height, waterproof ratings
      • Need to figure out how to group hardware wallet models
        • One entry per wallet would be a lot of wallets
        • Grouping all hardware wallets from the same manufacturer would definitely be a no-go: example: Trezor model T doesn’t have a secure element.
    • Embedded wallets!
      • tantodefi.eth volunteers
      • WaaP also interested in contributing data/methodology
  • UI/UX issues
    • darrylyeo:
      • Mobile UX
    • lucilajuliana:
      • undefined in tooltip issue
    • Still need help:
      • Branding/icon:
        • polymutex to reach out to suggested artists
      • Guides section on the site
      • Fixing lint issues
    • Infra issues
      • Creating Radicle mirror #274
      • Migrating to Omnipin #346
  • 1TS security benchmark: https://github.com/walletbeat/walletbeat/discussions/407
    • Feedback?
    • How to integrate?
  • Open topics
    • REN2140 to work on questionnaire for wallet teams
      • Only asking questions that aren’t too difficult for wallets to answer offhand; reach out to wallet teams.
      • Some teams happy. GridPlus requests a list of questions.
      • REN2140 Back from vacation this week.
    • GitHub PRs hidden because GitHub sucks :(
      • Filed support ticket
  • Action items
    • Add Cyfrin as delegate for X account (cyfrin account directly)
    • Group hardware wallets by their chip generation / secure element hardware

Walletbeat Sync Meeting Summary - December 18, 2025 (AI-generated)

This is an auto-generated meeting summary from the meeting transcript using Qwen3 and the summary prompt present in the repository. It may contain inaccuracies due to transcription errors and hallucinations.

Attendees

  • polymutex (organizer)
  • ren2140
  • 0xMattmatt
  • PatrickAlphaC (Patrick)

Main Segments of the Call

1. Retrospective of 2025 Roadmap Progress

Topic: Review of progress against the 2025 roadmap document.

Purpose: To assess how much of the planned work for 2025 has been completed, setting expectations for the future.

Problem to solve: Determine if the project is on track to meet its goals for the year.

Solutions proposed: Polymutex walked through the roadmap, comparing planned vs. completed items (75% completion rate).

Debate/unresolved questions: None specifically about the roadmap review.

Actions:

  • Continue working on remaining attributes (75% completion rate)
  • Focus on finishing the methodology and getting more wallets rated
  • Create a multisig for governance (currently 1/4, need at least 5 contributors)
  • Work on social media strategy (WalletBit X account)

2. Next Month Priorities

Topic: Short-term goals for the next month.

Purpose: To set clear expectations for what the team will focus on in the upcoming month.

Problem to solve: Determine the most important tasks to tackle in the short term.

Solutions proposed:

  • Polymutex: Self-hosted node attribute refactor (L1 provider independence), contribution guides, 2026 roadmap
  • 0xMattmatt:
    • Transaction legibility improvements (detailed output specific to wallet, message signing tests)
    • Add OKX and BitGet wallet data
    • Hardware wallet testing
    • requiresManufacturerConsent criteria (to address Ledger’s restrictive approach)
    • Fold transaction simulation into transaction legibility
    • Wallet test page for transaction legibility
    • User safety attribute refactor/deletion

Debate/unresolved questions:

  • Whether transaction simulation should be a requirement for passing or just an input (Patrick: “I don’t like it as a requirement to get the passing functionality” but “I could see it as input”)
  • How to handle hardware wallet grouping (see section 3 below)

Actions:

  • Create wallet test page for transaction legibility (issue #TODO)
  • Refactor user safety attribute (issue #367)
  • Add detailed output for transaction legibility (issue #403)
  • Add message signing tests (issue #404)
  • Work on requiresManufacturerConsent (issue #405)
  • Group hardware wallets by chip generation or secure element

3. Hardware Wallet Model Grouping

Topic: How to handle hardware wallet models with different features.

Purpose: To determine the most logical way to group hardware wallets for rating purposes.

Problem to solve: Current system treats all hardware wallet models as the same, but different models have different features (e.g., Trezor Model T lacks a secure element).

Solutions proposed:

  • Option 1: One entry per wallet model (too many entries)
  • Option 2: Group by manufacturer (not viable - e.g., Trezor Model T vs. other Trezor models)
  • Option 3: Group by chip generation (e.g., “Trezor’s first open-source chip” vs. other models)
  • Option 4: Group by secure element status (has secure element? open vs. closed source)

Debate/unresolved questions:

  • Patrick: “It might be interesting, like, I mean, just kind of thinking out loud here… like the what appears for ledger like maybe we give it like a best case we we show like the attributes of like the best model so we we just do like a point system if you will at whatever has the most points that’s like the model that kind of showed at the top”
  • Patrick: “I think it would be good to have that data on the site anyways, like who is creating their secure element if they have one.”

Actions:

  • Move discussion to issue on figuring out hardware wallet model grouping
  • Add secure element rating (open vs. closed source)

4. Transaction Legibility Improvements

Topic: Refining the transaction legibility attribute rating details.

Purpose: To make transaction legibility more specific and valuable for wallet developers.

Problem to solve: Current transaction legibility rating output is too generic, making it hard for wallet developers to know what they need to do to improve their wallets.

Solutions proposed:

  • Create a detailed output specific to the wallet (instead of a generic “improve your wallet” message)
  • Add message signing tests (including SIWE)
  • Fold transaction simulation support into transaction legibility (but not as a requirement for passing)

Debate/quotes:

  • Patrick: “I don’t like transaction simulation as a requirement to get the passing functionality but I could see it as like input, you know, maybe that changes in a few years”
  • 0xMattmatt: “For example, Metamask doesn’t show call data anymore for known transactions, they just show a transaction simulation”

Actions:

  • Create wallet test page for transaction legibility (0xMattmatt created a simple prototype)
  • Add detailed output specific to wallet (issue #403)
  • Add message signing tests (issue #404)
  • Work on requiresManufacturerConsent criteria (issue #405)

5. Infrastructure Issues

Topic: Addressing GitHub issues and infrastructure improvements.

Purpose: To improve the development workflow and reduce dependency on GitHub.

Problem to solve: GitHub has flagged polymutex twice and is hiding PRs from the PR list, making development difficult.

Solutions proposed:

  • Create a Radicle mirror of the repository (Radicle is a GitHub replacement)

Debate/unresolved questions:

  • How to make the Radicle mirror work without disrupting contributions
  • polymutex: “Requiring all contributors to download, set up, get familiar with, and use Radicle would be a very large hurdle for the project to grow its contributor base.”

6. 1TS Security Benchmark

Topic: The 1TS security benchmark document.

Purpose: To align Walletbeat’s security rating with the Ethereum Foundation’s 1TS initiative.

Problem to solve: Walletbeat is funded by the EF’s 1TS initiative, which requires a security benchmark.

Solutions proposed:

  • Polymutex created a security benchmark document separate from Walletbeat’s methodology
  • Document has three security areas: “protect the user from shooting themselves in the foot,” “runtime security,” and “operational security”

Debate/unresolved questions:

  • How much of the security benchmark should be integrated into Walletbeat’s methodology
  • polymutex: “I do not personally want WalletBeat to be security-oriented by default… I think wallets need to be pushed across all dimensions, and security is just one of them.”

Actions:

  • Patrick and 0xMattmatt to review the security benchmark document (GitHub discussion #407)

7. REN2140’s Work on Wallet Team Outreach

Topic: REN2140’s work on reaching out to wallet teams.

Purpose: To gather data from wallet teams to improve the Walletbeat methodology.

Problem to solve: Need to get more data from wallet teams to improve the rating system, with low barrier to entry initially.

Solutions proposed:

  • Create a list of questions that are not too technically difficult for wallet teams to answer off the cuff
  • Reach out to wallet teams (GridPlus already asked for a list of questions)

Debate/unresolved questions: None mentioned.

Actions:

  • REN2140 to compile a list of questions for wallet teams
  • Send the list to Polymutex for review then send to wallet teams

High-Level Summary

This meeting was a retrospective and planning session for the Walletbeat project, held near the end of 2025. The team reviewed progress against the 2025 roadmap, achieving approximately 75% completion rate on planned work, with significant progress on core attributes like transaction legibility, bug bounty program, and private token transfers.

Key discussion points included:

  1. Transaction Legibility: Significant work was done on transaction legibility, with plans to improve the detailed output specific to wallets, add message signing tests (including SIWE), and address the requiresManufacturerConsent issue (to address Ledger’s restrictive approach). There was debate about whether transaction simulation should be a requirement or just an input to the rating.

  2. Hardware Wallets: The team discussed how to handle hardware wallet models with different features (e.g., Trezor Model T lacks a secure element). The consensus was to group by chip generation or secure element status rather than by manufacturer.

  3. Infrastructure: GitHub’s repeated account bans and hidden PRs were a major issue. The team decided to create a Radicle mirror of the repository.

  4. Security Benchmark: The team reviewed the 1TS security benchmark document, with the goal of aligning it with Walletbeat’s methodology without making the project security-focused by default.

  5. Next Steps: The team has clear action items for the next month, including:

    • Creating a wallet test page for transaction legibility
    • Refactoring the user safety attribute
    • Grouping hardware wallets by secure element status
    • Improving mobile UX
    • Completing the questionnaire for wallet teams

The meeting concluded with plans for a more regular cadence of meetings at different times to accommodate global contributors. The team agreed to rotate meeting times to better serve the global community (Asia/Europe/Americas). Patrick mentioned he plans to create a “very opinionated tier list of hardware wallets” before the year ends.