Tangem's research reveals a widening gap between what crypto users say they want and what they actually use. Two-thirds of respondents expressed support for self-custody wallets, yet awareness and adoption of hardware wallet solutions remain substantially lower—suggesting friction that hardware makers haven't yet resolved.
The findings point to a familiar pattern in crypto infrastructure: users prize control in theory, but adoption stutters when it hits friction. Self-custody requires users to manage seed phrases, device recovery, and transaction signing themselves, without a company intermediary to reset a lost password or reverse a mistake. For many, that's a feature. For others, it's a barrier.
Hardware wallets—dedicated devices that hold private keys offline—have traditionally been positioned as the gold standard for cold storage: secure, but inconvenient. Tangem's data suggests the sector is evolving. Users increasingly see hardware wallets not just as vaults for inactive holdings, but as tools for active management and trading. That shift changes the value proposition. A device that signs transactions weekly looks different from one that sits untouched for years.
The gap between stated support and actual adoption hints at unresolved trade-offs. Users might endorse self-custody without owning a hardware wallet because they're unfamiliar with the specific products, perceive them as expensive or difficult to set up, or haven't encountered enough friction with custodial services to justify the switch. User experience remains a dependency. If signing a transaction or recovering a lost device requires expertise, adoption will plateau regardless of stated preference.
Tangem's findings also reflect broader market maturation. Early crypto adopters already self-custody. The remaining addressable market—people who still hold assets on exchanges or with custodians—have higher switching costs, both cognitive and practical. Converting stated preference into actual migration requires either solving a real usability problem or triggering enough dissatisfaction with existing solutions to force the move.
The data underscores why hardware wallet makers continue iterating on user experience. Card-based solutions like Tangem's own product, seedless recovery options, and integrations with mobile wallets all attempt to lower the friction without sacrificing security. But preference alone doesn't shift an installed base. Adoption follows when the alternative becomes too costly or unreliable.