Ledger eyes $4bn US IPO as critics question past breaches and new fee strategy

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-01-23Last updated on 2026-01-23

Abstract

Ledger, a Paris-based hardware wallet manufacturer, is reportedly planning a US IPO that could value the company at over $4 billion. The potential New York listing, which could occur as early as this year, highlights the growing investor appetite for crypto infrastructure firms. Founded in 2014, Ledger has benefited from increased demand for self-custody solutions. However, the announcement has reignited scrutiny over the company's past security breaches, including a 2020 data leak of customer information. Critics have also questioned Ledger's recent decision to introduce new fees for security features, with some viewing it as a value extraction move ahead of the public listing. If the IPO proceeds, investors are expected to closely examine both the firm's growth potential and its historical security track record.

Ledger’s plans for a potential US initial public offering, valuing the company at more than $4 billion, have reignited debate over the crypto security firm’s track record, as community scrutiny intensifies over past data breaches and recent monetisation changes.

The Paris-based hardware wallet maker is working with major investment banks on a possible New York listing that could take place as early as this year, according to a Financial Times report.

The move would mark another high-profile crypto-related IPO in the US, following recent listings and filings from firms including BitGo, Circle, Gemini, and Bullish.

IPO ambitions follow record year for crypto security demand

Ledger manufactures hardware wallets designed to allow users to store cryptocurrencies offline, reducing exposure to exchange hacks and online attacks.

The company has benefited from renewed interest in self-custody tools as crypto adoption has expanded and high-profile security incidents have continued across the sector.

Founded in 2014, Ledger was valued at roughly $1.5 billion in its most recent funding round in 2023.

A $4 billion IPO valuation would represent a significant step-up, underlining growing investor appetite for crypto infrastructure companies rather than speculative trading platforms.

The planned US listing also reflects a broader shift in crypto capital markets, with executives increasingly citing New York as the centre of liquidity and institutional demand for digital asset businesses.

Community scrutiny resurfaces over Ledger security history

While the IPO plans underscore Ledger’s commercial momentum, they have also drawn renewed criticism from parts of the crypto community.

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT highlighted Ledger’s history of data breaches, which previously exposed customer information and were linked to phishing attacks and targeted thefts.

Ledger has acknowledged past incidents, including a widely reported 2020 breach that leaked customer contact details.

Although no private keys were compromised, the episode remains a sensitive point for a company whose core value proposition is security and trust.

Critics have also pointed to reported hardware issues with certain Ledger devices, including battery-related complaints, as further evidence that the company’s products are not without operational risks.

Monetisation changes add to investor questions

The renewed scrutiny comes as Ledger has announced changes to its revenue model, including plans to charge fees tied to “clear signing” features designed to help users better understand transaction details before approval.

While the company has positioned the move as an enhancement to user safety, some observers argue that the timing, ahead of a potential IPO, raises questions about value extraction from an existing customer base.

What markets will be watching

Ledger has not formally confirmed the IPO timeline. However, if the listing proceeds, public market investors are likely to scrutinise both the firm’s growth prospects and its historical security record.


Final Thoughts

  • Ledger’s IPO plans underscore growing investor appetite for crypto infrastructure but also heighten scrutiny of its trust and security history.
  • As more crypto firms pursue US listings, credibility and transparency are likely to play a larger role in public market valuations.

Related Questions

QWhat is the potential valuation of Ledger's US IPO and what has it reignited debate over?

AThe potential valuation is over $4 billion, and it has reignited debate over the company's track record, including past data breaches and recent monetisation changes.

QWhich major financial hub is Ledger considering for its IPO and what does this reflect?

ALedger is considering a New York listing, which reflects a broader shift in crypto capital markets towards New York as the center of liquidity and institutional demand for digital asset businesses.

QWhat was Ledger's valuation in its most recent funding round and when was it founded?

ALedger was valued at roughly $1.5 billion in its 2023 funding round and was founded in 2014.

QWhat specific past incident has been a sensitive point for Ledger's security reputation?

AA widely reported 2020 data breach that leaked customer contact details, which was linked to phishing attacks and targeted thefts, has been a sensitive point, even though no private keys were compromised.

QWhat recent change to Ledger's revenue model has drawn criticism from some observers?

APlans to charge fees for 'clear signing' features have drawn criticism, with some observers arguing the timing ahead of a potential IPO raises questions about value extraction from its existing customer base.

Related Reads

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

A Spanish La Liga club, reportedly Osasuna, purchased insurance against relegation and was linked to a transaction of over $1 million on the prediction market platform Kalshi, betting against its own victory in a crucial season-ending match. While Osasuna confirmed buying €1.2 million insurance for a potential €6 million payout in case of relegation through broker Howden, it did not confirm involvement with Kalshi. The reported trade involved intermediaries like Game Point Capital and Greenlight Commodities, with quant firm Susquehanna as the counterparty. This incident highlights the blurring line between financial hedging and gambling in prediction markets. Such markets allow trading on future event outcomes, like sports results. In the US, Kalshi operates as a regulated event contract market under the CFTC. However, Spanish authorities recently initiated penalties against Kalshi and Polymarket, considering their activities unlicensed gambling. The case raises core questions about prediction markets: who can trade, how insider information is handled, and whether participants can influence outcomes, especially in sports where results are human-driven. While leagues like La Liga and Serie A have partnered with Polymarket in North America, the regulatory clash and potential for conflicts of interest, as seen in this club's alleged transaction, present significant challenges as prediction markets evolve toward institutional risk management.

Foresight News7m ago

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

Foresight News7m ago

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

How much of Arthur Hayes's market credibility remains? Recently, the "godfather of crypto perpetual swaps" and BitMEX co-founder has faced public criticism, including accusations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT about creating exit liquidity for his followers. Starting last week, Hayes executed multiple sudden sell-offs. He had repeatedly publicly predicted the HYPE token would reach $150. After a $100,000 bet defending Hyperliquid on June 1st, he announced just three days later that he had completely sold his HYPE and NEAR holdings, successfully exiting near the peak. He also sold ZEC and WLD. His sale of WLD appeared to be a classic "pump and dump" maneuver. On June 3rd, he publicly set a $10 target for WLD, causing its price to surge over 35%. By June 6th, he announced he had sold his WLD, citing "anomalous" SpaceX pre-IPO price action, which triggered a sharp price drop. On June 9th, Hayes published a lengthy article explaining his actions, citing factors like rising energy costs and a potential AI bubble burst. Consequently, his family office, Maelstrom, now holds positions in US energy producers and only core crypto assets BTC and ETH, having sold AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. This pattern is not new. In 2025, he similarly touted HYPE before selling it at what turned out to be a cycle peak, only to repurchase it at the next cycle's low. Similar scenarios played out with tokens like ETHFI and ENA. Long-term observers have developed a strategy: ignore Hayes's public statements but closely monitor his on-chain actions—be cautious following his buys, but decisively follow his sells. If he continues these tactics, especially as seen with the WLD case, his market credibility risks being permanently damaged. As Hayes himself admitted in his latest article, "I remain an unapologetic gambler."

marsbit25m ago

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

marsbit25m ago

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

The article details a series of absurd and revealing anecdotes shared by Silicon Valley founders about their venture capital fundraising experiences, sparked by Greg Isenberg's story of pitching to a sleeping a16z partner. Founders describe surreal pitch meetings: one faced a barefoot, peanut-eating investor who offered triple the requested amount after 30 seconds; another performed a pitch in a VC's parked car; a founder discovered his audience understood no English beyond "yes." These stories highlight the often irrational and performative nature of fundraising. Beyond the absurdity, darker power imbalances are exposed. Stories include investors suggesting founders fire co-founders for their equity, blatant market misjudgments, disrespectful behavior from LPs, and discriminatory remarks. A debate also emerges around "Sequoia's" practice of splitting a round into two valuations. However, the thread isn't solely critical. Positive counter-narratives celebrate supportive VCs who offered crucial advice during crises, respected founders' timelines, and showed simple gestures of respect—like a partner personally fetching coffee before a major pitch. Ultimately, the collective sharing acts as a pressure release, illustrating that fundraising is a complex dance of power, trust, and sometimes sheer theater. It underscores that beyond capital, mutual respect and integrity remain the most enduring foundations of the founder-investor relationship.

marsbit38m ago

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

marsbit38m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片