Foundation CEO Zach Herbert urges hardware wallet makers to build locally

Zach Herbert, co-founder and CEO of Foundation Devices, has a simple message for hardware wallet makers: build your devices close to home.

His argument is that the more hands a wallet passes through before it reaches a buyer, the more chances someone has to tamper with it. That warning lands in the wake of a supply chain incident involving Ledger devices, estimated to have cost between $86 million and $100 million.

The case for keeping it local

Herbert is pushing manufacturers to prioritize local assembly and to ship devices straight from the factory to customers. The goal is to reduce the openings for supply chain attacks, where a device is compromised somewhere between the production line and the buyer’s desk.

Herbert’s approach goes beyond geography. He is also advocating for physical tamper detection and open-source designs, which he argues are critical for confirming that a device is what it claims to be.

Journalist Laura Shin highlighted Herbert’s focus on local manufacturing in a November 13, 2026 statement. She attributed the push to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities directly to him.

The Ledger incident that sharpened the debate

Herbert’s comments follow an October 2026 supply chain breach involving Ledger. Tampered hardware sold through resellers was tied to the theft of funds estimated between $86 million and $100 million.

How Foundation practices what it preaches

Foundation Devices has positioned its Passport hardware wallet line as an example of the approach Herbert is advocating. That line includes the newer Passport Prime model.

The company builds its Passport devices entirely in the US. Assembly takes place in an ITAR-certified facility, which Foundation says allows for strong validation of its supply chain.

The devices also include active tamper circuitry, meaning the hardware is designed to respond when someone tries to physically interfere with it. Foundation pairs that with open-source software designs.

None of this is a coincidence of branding. Herbert is effectively describing his own product strategy as the industry standard he would like competitors to adopt. That doesn’t make the argument wrong, but readers should keep in mind that the person making the case also sells the solution.

Foundation’s stance also runs against the broader direction of the industry. Many hardware wallet makers have leaned on overseas manufacturing and third-party reseller networks to scale production and reach more buyers.

A market that may split in two

Herbert has also offered a view of where the hardware wallet market could be heading. He suggests it may segment into two distinct streams.

The first would be high-security domestic products, built with features designed to earn user trust. Herbert has pointed to capabilities like device bricking, where a wallet can render itself unusable if it detects tampering.

The second would be DIY options, which are often used in multisig arrangements. Multisig, short for multisignature, is a setup that requires more than one key to approve a transaction. If one device is compromised, an attacker still can’t move funds alone.

What this means for buyers and builders

For consumers, the practical takeaway is that device provenance now deserves the same attention as device features. Buying directly from a manufacturer rather than through a reseller is the most obvious step that follows from Herbert’s argument. Checking whether a device offers tamper detection and open-source code is another.

For manufacturers, the pressure points are cost and scale. Domestic assembly and factory-direct shipping can give a company tighter control, but they cut against the overseas production and reseller channels that much of the industry relies on.