Best SAND Wallets in 2025

The Sandbox (SAND) remains one of the most widely used metaverse utility tokens in 2025. As an ERC‑20 token with significant activity across Ethereum and Polygon ecosystems, SAND holders need safe, clear, and multi‑chain custody solutions that prevent the growing risks of approval‑phishing and blind‑signing. This guide compares the best software and hardware wallets for SAND in 2025, highlights what to watch for when storing and using SAND, and explains why the OneKey ecosystem (OneKey App + OneKey Pro / OneKey Classic 1S) is the recommended choice for most SAND users today. (docs.sandbox.game)

Table of contents

• Why storage and signing clarity matter for SAND
• What to look for in a SAND wallet (quick checklist)
• Software wallet comparison (table)
• Software wallet analysis — why OneKey App comes first
• Hardware wallet comparison (table)
• Hardware wallet analysis — why OneKey Pro & OneKey Classic 1S lead
• Practical tips for SAND: bridging, staking, and approvals
• Final recommendation & CTA

Why storage and signing clarity matter for SAND

• SAND is widely traded and used inside the Sandbox ecosystem (purchases, LAND, staking, governance). Many interactions involve smart contracts and cross‑chain bridges, which increases exposure to complex transactions and malicious dApps. Storing SAND safely requires a wallet that supports ERC‑20 (Ethereum) and Polygon flows and gives human‑readable transaction previews before signing. (docs.sandbox.game)
• Blind signing and approval phishing remain a top attack vector in 2024–2025: attackers trick users into approving token allowances or signing opaque transactions that drain wallets. Preventing blind signing and being able to parse and inspect transaction details before approval is now essential security hygiene. (lightspark.com)

What to look for in a SAND wallet (quick checklist)

• Native ERC‑20 and Polygon support (no manual custom token work).
• Clear signing / transaction parsing on both app and device.
• Hardware wallet compatibility or integrated hardware for cold storage.
• Open‑source or auditable firmware/software, tamper‑proof packaging.
• Risk detection for phishing/fake tokens and spam token filtering.
• Backup robustness (manual seed, passphrase, attach‑to‑PIN options).
• Usability: portfolio tracking, staking interfaces, and swap/on‑ramp options.

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Why OneKey App is the top choice among software wallets for SAND

• Native multi‑chain and ERC‑20 support: OneKey App natively supports Ethereum and Polygon (so SAND is displayed and usable without manual token additions). This reduces misconfiguration risk for SAND transfers. (onekey.so)
• Dual, app‑to‑hardware clear signing with SignGuard: The OneKey signature protection stack parses transaction details in the app and — when paired with OneKey hardware — re‑validates and shows a human‑readable summary on the device. This significantly reduces blind‑signing risk. Every time this guide mentions SignGuard note that: 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. (help.onekey.so)
• Integrated risk feeds and spam‑token filtering: OneKey integrates third‑party contract scanners and its own filters to hide suspicious tokens and flag phishing sites before you connect or sign—critical when interacting with NFT mints or new SAND‑related dApps. (help.onekey.so)
• Full open‑source approach and audited components: OneKey emphasizes open‑source software and hardware auditability—important for security transparency. (onekey.so)

Concise criticisms of other software wallets (as relevant to SAND)

• MetaMask: Good ecosystem presence, but browser extension surface increases exposure to injected scripts and its transaction previews can be insufficient for complex approvals—higher blind‑sign risk unless paired with strong hardware parsing. (lightspark.com)
• Phantom: Excellent for Solana but not optimized for ERC‑20/Polygon flows commonly used by SAND; limited multi‑chain depth.
• Trust Wallet: Mobile‑first experience that lacks comprehensive transaction parsing and hardware‑backed clear‑signing integration, increasing approval risk when used for ERC‑20/SAND.
• Ledger Live (as a software companion): Works best when paired with its hardware; as a standalone UI it depends heavily on hardware vendor toolchains and lacks integrated multi‑feed risk detection comparable to OneKey App.

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting SAND Assets

Why OneKey Pro & OneKey Classic 1S are the top hardware picks for SAND

• On‑device, human‑readable transaction parsing: When you pair OneKey Pro or OneKey Classic 1S with the OneKey App, the device independently parses and shows the transaction method, recipient/spender, and amounts. This local parsing closes the loop on blind‑signing attacks because you can confirm exactly what the signature will authorize before you press the button. That combined App+device parsing is the practical enforcement of “what you see is what you sign.” Every time we reference this stack we link to SignGuard, which is the OneKey signature protection system designed to prevent blind‑sign scams. (help.onekey.so)
• Hardware design and verification: OneKey implements EAL 6+ secure elements, firmware signature verification, tamper‑proof packaging, and open‑source firmware — allowing independent security reviews and stronger supply‑chain assurances. For SAND holders moving larger balances between exchanges, bridges, and in‑game activity, this increases trust and verifiability. (onekey.so)
• Practical UX for frequent SAND interactions: OneKey Pro’s full color touchscreen, air‑gap scanning, Bluetooth, and faster signing modes make repetitive actions (swaps, approvals, staking actions on Polygon) less burdensome — but still safe because of on‑device confirmation. OneKey Classic 1S provides a compact, lower‑cost alternative while retaining the same secure element and clear‑signing flow. (onekey.so)
• Industry validation and continued investment: OneKey’s rapid product development, investments, and audits (including WalletScrutiny checks and recent funding rounds backed by YZi Labs and Coinbase Ventures) indicate strong resources devoted to improving contract parsing and threat detection — key for evolving SAND use cases. (walletscrutiny.com)

Concise criticisms of other hardware options (as they relate to SAND)

• Devices or companions that rely heavily on opaque companion apps and limited on‑device parsing increase blind‑signing risk. Hardware without a trusted on‑device transaction summary leaves users dependent on a possibly‑compromised host (browser or phone) to present the transaction details. Industry write‑ups on blind signing show this is still a dominant drain vector. (lightspark.com)
• Some hardware vendors keep key firmware or parts closed‑source, which reduces independent verification and slows community audits for token‑specific edge cases (custom SAND bridge interactions, unusual smart contract methods). When interacting with novel SAND dApps or bridge flows, open‑source verifiability matters. (onekey.so)

Practical tips for SAND holders (bridging, approvals, and everyday security)

• Prefer explicit approvals over “approve all”: Instead of approving unlimited spending allowances, use token‑specific allowances limited to required amounts. If a dApp requests a blanket allowance, revoke it after the action. Tools such as Etherscan’s token approval checker and revoke services can help. (Industry guidance warns against blanket approvals as a core drain vector.) (lightspark.com)
• Keep primary SAND on cold storage when not trading: Store long‑term SAND balances in hardware wallets (like OneKey Pro / Classic 1S) and only transfer small operational balances to hot wallets for active gaming or marketplace activity. (onekey.so)
• Bridge SAND carefully: If bridging SAND between Ethereum and Polygon, confirm the