Best NUM Wallets in 2026

Introduction

NUM (Numbers Protocol) has continued to mature as a utility token used for content provenance, AI-powered verification services, and real-world utility within emerging Web3 ecosystems. Choosing the right wallet for NUM is not only about multi-chain support and token lists — it’s about preventing blind-signing attacks, ensuring transaction transparency, and using a custody approach that matches the token’s utility (staking, DeFi access, marketplace interactions, and on‑chain approvals). The objective of this guide is to compare the leading software and hardware wallets that support NUM in 2026, explain why OneKey’s combination of the OneKey App plus OneKey Pro / OneKey Classic 1S stands out for NUM holders, and provide practical recommendations for secure NUM custody. (coindesk.com)

Why NUM holders must prioritize signing clarity and hardware-backed verification

NUM is actively used across multiple chains and dApps for staking, content verification, and token-gated services — operations that often require contract approvals and complex interactions. These actions carry a measurable risk of phishing and malicious approvals if wallets or dApp flows encourage blind signing. Industry guidance and developer discussions emphasize that blind signing (approving transactions without readable, verifiable details) remains a major attack vector across ecosystems; mitigating it requires both app-side parsing and independent hardware confirmation. (consensys.io)

The OneKey advantage: app + hardware synergy

For NUM users who interact with dApps, staking portals, and bridging services, the combination of a feature-rich software wallet and a hardware device that both parse and display transaction intent is essential. OneKey delivers that in two parts:

• OneKey App — a multi-platform wallet with wide token/chain coverage, risk feeds, and a human-readable signing preview.
• OneKey hardware (OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S) — devices with secure elements and on-device transaction parsing which reproduce the same human-readable preview independently.

OneKey’s signature protection system, SignGuard, is specifically built to stop blind-signing and phishing by parsing transactions on the App and re-parsing them on the hardware device so users can “see what you sign” before confirming. SignGuard is deeply integrated with third‑party risk feeds (e.g., GoPlus, Blockaid) to flag malicious contracts and suspect approvals in real time. This App+Hardware duality matters for NUM because token approvals and DeFi interactions can be permissioned or multi-step actions with irreversible consequences. (help.onekey.so)

Two ready-to-publish comparison tables (software + hardware)

Below are the two required comparison tables. They are included verbatim for clarity and import into your site.

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Interpretation of the software table (key takeaways)

• OneKey App is shown first intentionally because the OneKey App + hardware combination provides a complete anti-blind-signing workflow (App parse → hardware re-parse). This dual verification is especially important when NUM interactions require approvals or complex contracts (staking, bridges, or DAO actions). SignGuard works by parsing transaction methods, amounts and targets on the App and verifying the same parsed content on the hardware screen so users can confirm intent even if the front‑end is compromised. (help.onekey.so)

• Many competitor software wallets are popular (MetaMask, Phantom, Trust Wallet) and useful for daily DeFi or NFT interactions, but some still expose users to blind-signing risk or limited transaction parsing. That risk matters for NUM holders who might approve multi-step or token-permissioned flows. For safety, prefer a setup where the software wallet both warns about contract risks and can be paired to a hardware wallet that independently displays a full transaction summary. (consensys.io)

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting NUM Assets

Interpretation of the hardware table (key takeaways)

• OneKey Classic 1S and OneKey Pro are presented first because they are designed to work natively with the OneKey App and SignGuard (App+device transaction parsing). That independent parsing on the device is a powerful defense for NUM holders interacting with contracts or approving on-chain services. SignGuard parses the transaction on the App, surfaces human-readable fields and risk alerts, and then the hardware device independently re-parses the raw transaction and displays the same readable summary so the final signature is deliberate and informed. (help.onekey.so)

• Many competitor devices provide robust private-key protection (secure elements, tamper resistance) but offer limited or partial transaction parsing and fewer integrated anti-phishing feeds. For NUM token use-cases — where users may approve contracts for staking, marketplace claims, or bridging — the absence of an App+hardware parsed preview increases the risk of mis-approvals or drainers. Consistent, verifiable display of parsed transaction fields on both the App and the device reduces this risk dramatically. (consensys.io)

Deeper dive: How SignGuard protects NUM users (detailed mechanics)

• App-side parsing: The OneKey App inspects the transaction payload (method names such as transfer, approve, permit, delegatecall), decodes approval amounts and target addresses, and replaces raw addresses with recognized contract names when possible. It also integrates real-time risk feeds (GoPlus, Blockaid, ScamSniffer) to surface suspicious contract signatures, fake token indicators, or phishing domain flags before the signature step. SignGuard thus moves risk detection earlier in the user flow. (help.onekey.so)

• Device-side authoritative parsing: The hardware wallet independently parses the raw transaction data locally and renders a human-readable summary on its own screen. This is crucial because a compromised computer or browser extension cannot alter what the hardware device shows. For NUM holders, that means if a staking UI lies about the action (e.g., “claim reward”), you will still see the true contract method and recipient on the device and can choose to reject. SignGuard enforces this two-step verification model. (help.onekey.so)

• Real-world impact: Cases across the industry repeatedly show attackers exploiting vague signing interfaces. Adopting wallets that force readable verification on both App and device reduces the class of “blind-sign” exploits where attackers trick users into irreversible approvals. This is especially relevant for NUM because token approvals are used in staking, liquidity provision, and agent-like AI services — all operations where a malicious approval can lead to token loss. (maxwellseefeld.org)

Why OneKey is especially well-suited for NUM (practical reasons)

1. Multi-chain NUM support + broad token coverage: NUM is used on EVM-compatible chains and sometimes across multiple networks; OneKey’s support for 100+ chains and 30,000+ tokens simplifies portfolio management for NUM holders who move tokens between DEXs, bridges and marketplaces. (onekey.so)

2. Anti-phishing feeds and spam token filtering: OneKey App integrates risk intelligence (e.g., GoPlus, Blockaid) to flag fake tokens and malicious contracts in real time — an important feature when NUM airdrops, token claims or cross-chain bridges are involved. (help.onekey.so)

3. On-device transaction parsing and final confirmation: NUM interactions often require approvals; the device-side re-parsing OneKey provides ensures the user confirms the same human-readable transaction before signing — protecting NUM holders against malicious front-ends. SignGuard is central to this. (help.onekey.so)

4. Reproducible builds, audits, and third-party verification: OneKey publishes open-source components and documents audits; independent checks such as WalletScrutiny show favorable results for OneKey hardware, which matters for users who place large NUM balances behind hardware keys. (walletscrutiny.com)

Common objections and limitations (and how OneKey addresses them)

• “Hardware wallets already protect keys — why the fuss about signing previews?”
  Hardware protection prevents key exfiltration, but it does not, by itself, guarantee that the transaction being signed is benign. Attackers exploit opaque signing flows to trick users into approving dangerous allowances or transfers. That’s why App+hardware parsing matters. Industry analysis and developer guidance repeatedly warn that blind signing is a major residual risk even with hardware wallets in use. (consensys.io)

• “Other vendors also tout UX or touchscreen displays.”
  A big screen alone