Today’s wallet is a private, single-player tool. You log in, you transact, you approve. Everything is siloed around you. But what happens if wallets stop being personal vaults — and start becoming multiplayer spaces?
The current design bias
Wallet UX is built around the individual:
One seed phrase.
One address.
One set of approvals.
Even when you add multisig or DAO treasuries, the interfaces feel like clunky add-ons. They were designed for one person, then awkwardly expanded to many.
But collaboration is everywhere in crypto: friends pooling funds, DAOs coordinating votes, families sharing accounts, even small businesses using wallets together. The UX hasn’t caught up.
Imagine multiplayer wallets
Shared balances Instead of sending ETH back and forth, a group could hold funds in a shared wallet with transparent activity logs.
Coordinated approvals One member initiates a transaction, another confirms, a third adds notes. Signatures become collaborative rather than solitary.
Role-based permissions Just like Slack has admins, editors, and viewers, wallets could assign roles: “spender,” “viewer,” “proposer,” “approver.”
Real-time presence You open your wallet and see who else is online. You co-sign a transaction together, almost like editing a Google Doc.
Why this matters
The way we design wallets today mirrors the early days of computing — personal machines, personal accounts. But as crypto matures, the unit of action is shifting:
From individuals → to teams, DAOs, and networks.
From single approvals → to group consensus.
From private ledgers → to collaborative decision-making.
A multiplayer wallet isn’t just a convenience feature. It redefines how we coordinate trust.
Benefits
Transparency Everyone in the group sees exactly what’s happening, no shadow signers.
Accountability Activity logs tie actions to people. “Who signed this?” is always answerable.
Efficiency Instead of waiting for signatures across three different apps, approvals could be coordinated in one interface.
Social UX layer Wallets become not just tools for money, but platforms for conversation, negotiation, and decision-making.
The hard problems
Coordination latency How do you balance speed with security? Waiting for three people to approve a $20 swap is absurd.
Dispute resolution What if two out of three want to proceed, but one blocks? UX needs to account for deadlocks.
Privacy inside transparency Do all members need to see every action? Or should roles filter what’s visible?
Security surface area More members = more devices = more risk. The social benefits shouldn’t become attack vectors.
UX principles for multiplayer wallets
Fluid delegation: Let roles shift dynamically. Someone can be a proposer today, an approver tomorrow.
Context-sensitive thresholds: Require more signers for high-value or high-risk actions, fewer for routine tasks.
Embedded communication: Transactions shouldn’t just be approved; they should be discussed, with notes and comments attached.
Presence awareness: Seeing who’s online adds both accountability and speed.
Why this “what if” matters
The wallet is the most fundamental surface in Web3. Right now, it’s a lonely place: one person, one screen, one decision. But the future of crypto isn’t solo — it’s collective.
If wallets evolve into multiplayer spaces, they stop being just keys to value. They become arenas of coordination. And in a networked economy, coordination is the real unlock.
What if wallets became multiplayer? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
