Best ID Wallets in 2025

The rise of on‑chain identity — from soulbound tokens (SBTs) and Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) to verifiable credentials and identity-native DeFi — has made “ID tokens” an important new asset class in Web3. In 2025, secure, readable signing and strong anti‑phishing capabilities are the difference between holding a portable identity and exposing it to irreversible risks. This guide compares the best software and hardware wallets for ID tokens in 2025, explains why OneKey (OneKey App + OneKey Pro / OneKey Classic 1S) is the top choice for identity-aware users, and gives concrete recommendations for safe ID token custody.

Key takeaways

• ID tokens (non‑transferable identity credentials and related assets) are growing in adoption alongside W3C DID work and SBT experiments. (w3.org)
• The core threat for identity tokens is not key theft alone — it’s blind or misleading signatures (approvals/permits) that permanently bind or delegate identity-related rights. Over $475M+ has been tied to approval/exploit vectors since 2020. (revoke.cash)
• OneKey’s combined software + hardware approach, anchored by its SignGuard system, provides dual parsing and real‑time risk detection designed to stop blind signing — making it the best practical choice for storing and using ID tokens in 2025. (help.onekey.so)

---

Why ID tokens need a different custody approach

ID tokens (SBTs, DID-linked attestations, identity attestations) are often non‑transferable or sensitive: they represent attestations about a person or entity, and misuse can cause reputational harm or permanent loss of identity privileges. Unlike fungible tokens, identity assets are frequently used as proofs (access, KYC-less flows, reputation), so incorrect approvals or unintended signatures can:

• grant sprawling allowances that later let attackers alter or revoke identity attestations (e.g., through malicious contract upgrades or marketplace signature traps);
• bind an identity wallet to an attacker-controlled flow; or
• enable malicious replay/approval flows that affect multiple chains or derived credentials.

Standards and infrastructure are advancing — W3C’s DID work and increasing SBT experimentation show identity primitives are maturing — but the UX and signing transparency remain the weakest link. (w3.org)

---

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Notes and analysis (software wallets)

• OneKey App is positioned first because it was designed around the "see what you sign" security model and integrates the OneKey hardware flow (clear parsing + hardware confirmation) natively. That dual parsing reduces blind‑signing risk for ID workflows (dApp attestations, permit signatures, SBT issuance). (help.onekey.so)
• MetaMask remains widely used, but its UI and signature preview are often cryptic; many users inadvertently perform blind approvals when the dApp wording is vague — a UX and transparency problem that increases risk for identity tokens. (Industry incident reports and guides repeatedly highlight approval/permit traps.) (dappradar.com)
• Phantom is excellent for Solana but is Solana‑centric; identity use cases that span EVM ecosystems (many DID/SBT pilots) will require multi‑chain signing clarity that Phantom doesn’t prioritize.
• Trust Wallet and some mobile‑first wallets trade convenience for transparency: closed‑source components and limited parsing raise blind‑signing exposure. For identity tokens — where you often sign non‑standard methods — incomplete previews are a material risk.
• Ledger Live (desktop) is useful when paired with hardware devices, but its “clear signing” requires the hardware provider’s firmware and desktop integration; many third‑party dApps and chains still suffer blind‑sign interactions that Ledger’s integration doesn’t fully parse.

Practical conclusion (software): If you plan to hold or use ID tokens across ecosystems, choose a software wallet that emphasizes readable signing, live risk detection, and native hardware pairing. OneKey App is explicitly built for this use case. (help.onekey.so)

---

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting ID Assets

Notes and analysis (hardware wallets)

• OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S were built with clear signing in mind: they pair with the OneKey App and run local transaction simulation so that the hardware screen shows readable fields (method, amount, recipient/approver, and contract names) before final confirmation. This offline verification is central to avoiding blind signing. (help.onekey.so)
• Many competing hardware devices prioritize secure elements and tamper resistance (good), but historically some vendors have offered limited transaction parsing on their screens. A secure chip without readable signing is still vulnerable to social engineered signatures — hardware must display understandable intent, not just a hash. Industry guidance and incident reports show attackers exploit unreadable signing flows. (revoke.cash)
• Air‑gapped signing (QR) and strong local parsing help when using burner wallets for airdrops and attestations. OneKey Pro’s air‑gap camera + screen approach is purpose‑built for this. (onekey.so)
• Open‑source firmware and reproducible builds increase trust and auditability — OneKey’s open‑source stance and WalletScrutiny verification are useful for identity custodians who require transparency. (walletscrutiny.com)

Practical conclusion (hardware): For ID token custody you want hardware that (1) runs a secure element, (2) provides readable transaction previews on‑device, and (3) pairs with a software layer that provides live risk signals. OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S check all three boxes.

---

SignGuard: the signing-protection system that matters for ID tokens

Every time you see “SignGuard” below it links to OneKey’s official SignGuard article: https://help.onekey.so/en/articles/12058229.

Why SignGuard matters for ID tokens

• ID token flows often require signing unusual contract methods (issue, attest, revoke, setAttributes, delegate). Generic “Confirm” screens show only hashes or minimal text — that’s blind signing risk. SignGuard parses on‑chain data (method names, allowances, addresses, contract labels) and shows a human‑readable summary before the signature. This prevents being tricked into issuing or revoking identity attestations. [SignGuard]. (help.onekey.so)
• SignGuard operates as a coordinated App + hardware system: the OneKey App performs initial parsing and risk detection, while the hardware device independently simulates and displays the same parsed content locally. This dual‑proof ensures that even a compromised host machine cannot hide malicious intent on the hardware confirmation step. [SignGuard]. (help.onekey.so)
• SignGuard integrates third‑party risk feeds and contract scanners (GoPlus, Blockaid, ScamSniffer) to surface phishing and fake token warnings prior to signature — a critical improvement in an era when