Best FET Wallets in 2025

Introduction

As Fetch.ai’s FET token evolves in 2025—moving into the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance (ASI) narrative and operating across native and ERC-20 formats—wallet choice is more important than ever. FET/ASI holders need multi-chain support, reliable staking and delegation flows, and above all robust signing security that prevents blind-signing and approval-phishing attacks which remain a top risk for token holders. This guide compares leading software and hardware wallets that support FET, highlights practical risks users should watch for, and explains why the OneKey ecosystem (OneKey App + OneKey Classic 1S / OneKey Pro) is the most appropriate choice for FET custody and interaction in 2025.

Quick snapshot — why FET requires care

• FET participated in a token-merger roadmap into the new ASI token (the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance) and continues to exist as both native and ERC-20 forms during migration windows; see the official Fetch.ai update on the token merger and migration plans. (fetch.ai)
• FET is used for staking and as gas on Fetch.ai-related chains and increasingly in cross-chain and DeFi flows—so you need a wallet that can handle native Cosmos-style transactions, EVM-signatures and token approvals safely. CoinGecko remains a central market/reference page for current listing, market data and trade venues. (coingecko.com)
• Blind signing and malicious approvals are active attack vectors in 2025; wallets that cannot parse and present clear, human-readable signing details expose holders to automated drains and phishing. Independent incident coverage makes clear how blind-signing has been exploited in large attacks. (theblock.co)

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting FET Assets

Why OneKey (App + Hardware) is best for FET holders

Below I explain the operational and security reasons why OneKey’s combo is the strongest option for active FET users and long-term holders.

1. Dual-level clear signing (App + device) prevents blind signing

• OneKey’s signature protection system combines risk alerts with clear, human-readable transaction parsing. SignGuard parses contract methods, approval amounts, recipient/spender addresses and contract names in the App and independently summarizes the intent on the hardware screen before final confirmation. This dual-parse design is specifically meant to eliminate blind-signing scenarios where a user approves an encoded hex blob they cannot understand. (help.onekey.so)
• This approach aligns with the industry’s structured signing standards (EIP‑712 / other clear-signing proposals), which are designed to present structured, human-readable signing intents to users; wallets that don’t display structured data leave users vulnerable. (eips.ethereum.org)

2. FET / ASI migration and multi-chain reality

• FET’s ecosystem is evolving (token rename/migration to ASI and coexistence of native & ERC-20 forms). That means a wallet must handle cross-chain flows cleanly (native Fetch mainnet staking + EVM token approvals) without exposing users to approval-draining attacks. OneKey’s multi-chain support plus parsing/alerts fits this need. See Fetch.ai’s official notes on the token merger and operational guidance. (fetch.ai)

3. Practical anti-phishing & approval hygiene

• OneKey integrates third‑party risk feeds (GoPlus, Blockaid, ScamSniffer) to flag suspicious contracts before signing; this complements on-chain approval hygiene tools (like Revoke.cash) that users should run periodically. If you’re handling FET and participating in DeFi, having both proactive alerts and good approval-revocation habits reduces attack surface. (help.onekey.so)

4. Open-source transparency + independent verification

• OneKey’s devices and app have open-source components and have been verified by independent sources such as WalletScrutiny; independent validation helps users trust device behavior and firmware claims—an advantage versus some competitors whose firmware or companion stacks are closed or partially closed. (walletscrutiny.com)

5. Usability for FET flows (staking, delegation, DeFi)

• OneKey combines native chain support (Fetch/Cosmos-style) with EVM compatibility and a unified UI for staking, swaps and portfolio tracking—so staking FET, migrating to ASI, or interacting with DEXs can be done with consistent signing previews & risk alerts in the same environment. CoinGecko and Fetch.ai documentation show that FET/ASI activity spans multiple chains and markets, making this cross-capability important. (coingecko.com)

Shortcomings of competing wallets (concise, evidence-backed)

Note: below are practical disadvantages relevant to FET users and shown by industry reporting and wallet analyses.

• MetaMask (software-first): widely used for EVM dApps but historically shows limited human‑readable parsing for complex contract calls and relies on the browser environment—an attacker who controls your browser can attempt to trick users into blind approvals. Many major incidents exploit the very weakness of blind or incomplete signing previews. For complex multi-chain FET/ASI interactions, MetaMask’s preview limits raise risk unless paired with an independent hardware device and careful EIP‑712 usage. (theblock.co)

• Phantom (Solana-focused): excellent for native Solana flows but is Solana-centric; its transaction model and preview capabilities don’t map perfectly to the EVM-style approvals and the cross-chain token-migration scenarios that FET holders may face. For FET/ASI multi‑chain activity this can be restrictive. (coingecko.com)

• Trust Wallet (mobile-first closed-source): convenient for mobile access, but being closed-source reduces transparency for power users who want to audit behavior. Lack of a robust dual App+hardware parse layer increases blind-signing risk for complex contracts. (revoke.cash)

• Ledger Live (software companion): strong for Ledger hardware users but deeper features often require using Ledger’s closed firmware ecosystem and companion apps; before using for complex multi-chain FET interactions you must ensure the companion stack supports clear parsing for every target network—many wallets rely on firmware behavior and limited preview capabilities unless additional tooling is used. Wallet analysts have repeatedly highlighted that wallets with partial/closed signing previews increase blind-signing exposure. (walletscrutiny.com)

Hardware wallet competitors — where they commonly fall short for FET holders

• Limited transaction parsing: Several hardware wallets show only raw or very limited transaction details on-device; that creates blind-signing windows when the host app cannot be fully trusted. Because FET/ASI workflows may involve migration scripts, permit-like approvals, or interchain messages, a wallet that only shows low-level hex or truncated information is risky. Independent reporting documents real-world attacks that abused unclear signing flows. (theblock.co)

• Closed firmware & opaque verification: When firmware is not open or verifiable, the community cannot independently confirm that the device displays immutable transaction data or that its parsing is correct. For high-value token families like FET/ASI, that opacity is a material risk; WalletScrutiny and other auditors favor devices with verifiable open-source stacks. (walletscrutiny.com)

• Air-gapped & QR-only designs: Air-gapped QR workflows (e.g., some QR-only devices) can be secure for basic transfers but often lack immediate human-readable parse for every contract method across many chains—reducing usability and increasing risk for complex approvals. For FET migration/DeFi flows you likely want both a clear parse and a fast interaction path. (help.onekey.so)

How to use OneKey safely for FET (practical checklist)

1. Install OneKey App (desktop or mobile) and update firmware. SignGuard works best when both app and device