On-chain investigator ZachXBT publicly criticized Ledger after reports said the hardware wallet maker is exploring a U.S. IPO. In a post on X, ZachXBT framed the IPO talk as profit-maximization, linking the narrative to Ledger’s history of customer data exposure and recent product and pricing controversies, including its clear-signing fee discussions in earlier coverage.
The IPO angle itself comes from reporting that Ledger has been working with banks on a potential New York listing, with a valuation referenced above $4 billion and with timing described as potentially as soon as this year, while also noting plans could change and that Ledger and the banks declined to comment.
If the critique spreads beyond crypto-native audiences, it can weaken trust in Ledger’s brand at the moment the company is being discussed as a public-markets candidate. Hardware wallets sell on reputation and perceived operational rigor, so reputational shocks tend to spill into broader self-custody sentiment rather than staying isolated to one vendor.
The narrative risk is also directional: “security company seeks IPO” is an easy story for mainstream outlets, and “security company had data leaks” is an even easier counter-story. When both get repeated together, it can influence buyer behavior, enterprise procurement comfort, and the tone of how self-custody is discussed during the next wave of retail onboarding.
Ledger has faced long-running scrutiny after a major customer data breach that surfaced in 2020, which the company addressed publicly in a CEO update on its own site, emphasizing that exposed information was e-commerce related rather than wallet seed material.
More recently, Ledger also published a support notice about a January incident involving order data exposure tied to a third-party e-commerce partner, which renewed attention to the recurring theme that privacy and operational security extend beyond device firmware into the vendor’s broader commercial stack.
That history is why ZachXBT’s framing resonates: it ties a high-level corporate ambition to the most emotionally salient category of user harm in self-custody, doxxing risk and targeting, rather than the more technical question of whether device security is intact.
The impact of this episode depends on whether the IPO narrative is supported by primary disclosures. If Ledger publishes an official statement, or if any U.S. securities filing becomes publicly visible, the conversation can shift from rumor-driven takes to more concrete debates about business model, risk controls, and compliance posture.
On the user side, sentiment shifts show up quickly in support and community channels. If the criticism triggers a measurable customer-impact wave, it typically appears as elevated support tickets, repeated questions about past incidents, and increased phishing and impersonation attempts that exploit brand controversy.
ZachXBT’s public mockery of Ledger’s reported U.S. IPO ambitions is less about the listing itself and more about trust compounding: past data exposure narratives can resurface instantly and shape how self-custody brands are perceived. Whether it becomes a lasting reputational hit will depend on how quickly primary IPO signals clarify the story and how effectively Ledger manages customer confidence amid renewed scrutiny.
The post ZachXBT Mocks Ledger’s Reported U.S. IPO Ambitions appeared first on Crypto Adventure.
Also read: Qubic Says Dogecoin Mining Build Is Underway, Revives 51% Attack Fears
