2018 Cryptocurrency Wallet Safety Scorecard
- Date:February 28, 2018
- Author(s):
- Test
- Kyle Marchini
- Sean Sposito
- Report Details: 26 pages, 12 graphics
- Research Topic(s):
- Fraud Management
- Fraud & Security
- PAID CONTENT
Overview
Interest in cryptocurrencies is reaching a fever pitch, both driven by and feeding skyrocketing prices for cryptocurrencies. This has been accompanied by a proliferation of wallets both as standalone wallets and custodial wallets that provide a fuller institutional experience. Less sophisticated users are likely to turn to custodial wallets, which have lower barriers to entry and resemble traditional financial institutions, but which have broader security vulnerabilities. All of this puts the onus of safeguarding those funds on the creators of cryptocurrency wallets — which can either enable or prevent fraud. In this report, Javelin evaluates the customer-facing fraud mitigation features of major cryptocurrency wallets against the fraud threats facing cryptocurrency investors.
Key questions discussed in this report:
- What kinds of fraud mitigation features are offered at leading cryptocurrency wallets?
- What are the key fraud threats faced by users of different types of wallets?
- How do these capabilities compare with the fraud threats faced by users of these services?
- How will the fraud-management features of these providers need to evolve as they try to compete with mainstream financial services providers?
Companies Mentioned: Abra, Airbitz, BitGo, BitPay, Blockchain, Bread, Coinapult, Coinbase, Copay, Exodus, GreenAddress, Jaxx, Mycelium, Xapo
Methodology
Javelin selected 14 custodial and noncustodial cryptocurrency wallets that were accessible to the Internet; available for desktop, Android, or iOS; appeared to be actively maintained by a core group of developers; and intended for storage of moderate to large values of cryptocurrencies.
Data was collected by Javelin employees who held accounts with each of the wallets. Data collection and quality assurance checks were conducted by separate employees using separate accounts with the same wallet. Data collection and quality checks occurred in January 2018.
In the event that a criterion was not applicable for a given wallet (e.g., desktop/browser authentication for mobile-only wallets), that criterion was not considered in Javelin’s assessment of that wallet. Partial credit was awarded in the event that a wallet did not offer the full capability for the criterion but offered a limited version of the feature or an equivalent feature that accomplished a similar purpose.
Learn More About This Report & Javelin
Related content
July 25, 2024
Ticketmaster Breach Inflates Complexity With Identity Fraud
At a time when account takeover and other identity fraud types are causing significant issues for consumers, the last thing consumers want to hear is that their information was sto...
June 04, 2024
Password Fatigue: A Case for Multilayered Passwordless Authentication
Traditional password-centered authentication is becoming less secure as cyberattacks increase in sophistication and consumers grow tired of strong password requirements. Financial ...
May 30, 2024
The Promise of Digital IDs: Reduced Fraud and Efficient ID Proofing
The move toward digital forms of ID is accelerating around the United States, and a greater use of such identification methods promises to reduce fraud losses and increase security...
Make informed decisions in a digital financial world