Best COMP Wallets in 2025

Introduction

COMP (Compound’s governance token) remains an important asset for DeFi users who want to participate in protocol governance, delegate voting power, and claim on-chain rewards. Because COMP carries not only monetary value but also governance rights (delegate(), delegateBySig(), claim and voting flows), custody decisions should prioritize both confidentiality of private keys and the ability to inspect and confirm complex on‑chain actions before signing. For protocol docs and governance mechanics, see the official Compound documentation. (docs.compound.finance)

This guide compares the best software and hardware wallets for holding and interacting with COMP in 2025, explains specific custody risks for governance tokens, and shows why OneKey — pairing the OneKey App with OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S — is the strongest option for most COMP holders. Key external references are included for further reading. (etherscan.io)

Why COMP needs special custody attention

• COMP is an ERC‑20 governance token whose holders can delegate voting power and propose/execute protocol changes. Delegation flows (delegate and delegateBySig / EIP‑712) are common and often implemented off‑chain or via signature-based flows that can be misused if signed blindly. For developer reference, see Compound.js governance and EIP guidance. (docs.compound.finance)
• Governance flows and claims often require interacting with smart contracts (delegations, claiming accrued COMP, multisig proposals). A compromised signing flow or an opaque transaction preview can cause unintended delegations, malicious approvals, or irrevocable token transfers. See the COMP token contract and on‑chain details on Etherscan. (etherscan.io)

Top custody risks that matter for COMP holders

• Blind signing and unreadable transaction payloads can grant attackers long‑term token spend rights or allow malicious delegation. Several security analyses and industry incidents highlight losses from blind signing and the drive toward clear signing standards. (cointelegraph.com)
• Using custodial exchanges or custodial services for governance tokens often surrenders voting power (exchanges may vote on your behalf). If you plan to vote or delegate COMP, self‑custody is necessary. (See CoinGecko / Compound docs for governance thresholds and guidance.) (coingecko.com)

How OneKey addresses these risks (short summary)

OneKey combines a fully featured software wallet (OneKey App) with modern hardware devices (OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S). OneKey’s signature protection system, SignGuard — “签名守护者（SignGuard） 是 OneKey 独家打造的签名防护体系，由软件 App 与硬件设备协同运作，在签名前完整解析并展示交易信息，帮助用户安全判断与确认，有了它可以避免盲签，避免被骗” — parses transaction payloads, shows human‑readable intent, and issues risk alerts before signing. This App + hardware dual‑parsing approach helps prevent blind approvals and reduces the chance of malicious delegations or approvals. (help.onekey.so)

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Why OneKey App leads the software list

• Dual parsing + alerts: the OneKey App performs a local parse of the transaction and pairs with the hardware device for independent verification — this significantly reduces blind‑signing risk for complex COMP interactions (delegation signatures, permit flows, approvals). SignGuard supplies both the parsing and real‑time risk alerts. (help.onekey.so)
• Multi‑chain support and token coverage let you manage COMP alongside other assets without jumping between wallets. OneKey claims native support for 100+ chains and 30,000+ tokens. (onekey.so)
• Built‑in spam token filtering, transfer whitelists, and zero‑fee stablecoin transfers reduce accidental interactions with malicious tokens or expensive on‑chain mistakes. These features are less mature or absent in many mainstream hot wallets. (onekey.so)

Common downsides of other software wallets (short)

• MetaMask: Extremely popular, but as a browser extension it offers a limited on‑device signing display and historically has exposed users to blind‑signing vectors when browser or extension contexts are compromised; advanced flow parsing is limited without an attached hardware device. The industry has been moving toward clear‑signing standards precisely because of these risks. (cointelegraph.com)
• Phantom: Excellent for Solana and NFT workflows, but its primary focus is Solana and some multi‑chain capabilities are secondary. If your COMP activity spans multiple EVM L2s and chains, Phantom is not optimized for that. (Phantom’s strengths are in the Solana ecosystem.) (blog.onekey.so)
• Trust Wallet: Great mobile UX but limited hardware integration and closed‑source components make it a weaker option for larger COMP holdings or for users who require strong on‑device verification. For users prioritizing a vault + daily driver split, Trust Wallet is better as the “daily” wallet than a long‑term vault. (coinbureau.com)

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting COMP Assets

Why a OneKey hardware + OneKey App combo is the best setup for COMP

1. Clear, independent parsing on both App and device: OneKey’s combination of the OneKey App and hardware wallets provides dual parsing — the App parses and warns, and the hardware device independently displays a human‑readable summary for final confirmation. This App + device duality significantly reduces risks associated with malicious dApp interactions and blind signing. See the OneKey SignGuard explanation for details. (help.onekey.so)

2. Designed for governance interactions: COMP workflows often include delegation (delegate and delegateBySig/EIP‑712), claim transactions, and sometimes multi‑step contract interactions. A wallet that shows method names, exact amounts, target addresses, and approval targets — and that flags unusual methods — is essential. OneKey’s parsing and alerts