Multi-Chain Wallet Development: Architecture, Features and Cost

Multi-chain wallet development involves more than connecting one application to several blockchain RPC endpoints.

A production wallet must standardize account creation, key management, balances, token discovery, transaction building, fee estimation, signing and activity history across networks with different account models and transaction structures.

Ethereum-compatible networks can often share one integration layer, but Bitcoin, Solana, Sui, XRP Ledger and Cosmos-based networks require separate handling. Each network has its own address formats, signing rules, fee mechanics, transaction lifecycle and data-indexing requirements.

The product must also protect private keys, display accurate transaction details, detect risky interactions and provide a consistent user experience without hiding important differences between networks.

This guide explains the architecture, custody models, security controls, features, technology stack, cost and development process required to build a reliable multi-chain wallet.

What Is Multi-Chain Wallet Development?

Multi-chain wallet development is the process of building one wallet application that allows users to manage assets and perform transactions across multiple blockchain networks.

A multi-chain wallet may support:

• Ethereum and EVM-compatible networks
• Bitcoin and other UTXO-based networks
• Solana
• Sui and Aptos
• Cosmos SDK networks
• XRP Ledger
• Tron
• TON
• Other network-specific ecosystems

The wallet should present a unified interface while preserving the rules of every supported network.

Typical wallet functions include:

• Creating or importing accounts
• Viewing native-asset and token balances
• Sending and receiving assets
• Estimating network fees
• Signing and broadcasting transactions
• Displaying transaction history
• Managing NFTs
• Connecting with dApps
• Swapping or bridging assets
• Receiving security and transaction notifications

The main engineering challenge is creating a shared wallet experience without incorrectly treating all blockchains as if they operate in the same way.

Multi-Chain Wallet Architecture

A scalable wallet should separate shared product logic from chain-specific implementation.

A practical architecture may follow this structure:

Mobile, web or browser-extension interface

→ Wallet core

→ Key-management layer

→ Chain abstraction interface

→ Chain-specific adapters

→ RPC and node providers

→ Indexing and portfolio services

→ Transaction simulation

→ Swap and bridge integrations

→ Security monitoring

→ Notifications and analytics

Application Layer

The application layer includes the mobile app, web interface, desktop application or browser extension.

It handles:

• User onboarding
• Wallet creation and import
• Portfolio display
• Network selection
• Token and NFT views
• Transaction review
• dApp connections
• Security settings
• Notifications

The interface should display one consistent design system while adapting transaction details to each network.

For example, a Bitcoin transfer may need to show the selected inputs, estimated network fee and change output. An XRP Ledger transfer may require a destination tag. A Solana transaction may include a separate fee payer and priority-fee configuration.

Wallet Core

The wallet core manages shared product behaviour.

It may contain:

• Supported network configuration
• Account and wallet profiles
• Address books
• Token lists
• Transaction status
• User permissions
• Feature flags
• Portfolio aggregation
• Network switching
• dApp session management

The wallet core should not contain low-level assumptions about one blockchain. Chain-specific behaviour belongs inside adapters.

Key-Management Layer

The key-management layer creates, stores and uses signing material.

Depending on the custody model, it may manage:

• Seed phrases
• Hierarchical deterministic keys
• Individual private keys
• Hardware-backed keys
• MPC key shares
• Multisignature policies
• Smart-account owners
• Session keys
• Recovery credentials

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals BIP-32, BIP-39 and BIP-44 define commonly used standards for hierarchical deterministic wallets, mnemonic recovery phrases and structured derivation paths. A wallet must still verify which derivation paths and signing schemes are supported by each target network.

The user interface should never receive raw private keys unless the product is intentionally performing a controlled backup or export operation.

Chain-Abstraction Interface

The abstraction interface defines a common set of wallet operations.

For example:

createAccount()

getAddress()

getBalance()

getTokens()

estimateFee()

buildTransaction()

simulateTransaction()

signTransaction()

broadcastTransaction()

getTransactionStatus()

getActivity()

Each chain adapter implements these operations according to the rules of its network.

This architecture allows the product team to add or update one blockchain without rewriting the complete wallet.

Chain-Specific Adapters

A chain adapter translates the shared wallet request into a valid network-specific operation.

Each adapter may handle:

• Address generation and validation
• Derivation paths
• Transaction serialization
• Signing payloads
• Nonce or sequence management
• UTXO selection
• Gas or fee calculation
• Token standards
• NFT standards
• Transaction confirmation
• Error handling
• Explorer links

The adapter layer should be versioned and tested independently because blockchain SDKs, RPC methods and network rules can change.

RPC and Node Layer

The wallet uses RPC providers or self-hosted nodes to retrieve network state and broadcast transactions.

A production implementation should avoid depending entirely on one provider.

The RPC layer should support:

• Provider fallback
• Health checks
• Rate-limit management
• Network-specific timeouts
• Response validation
• Regional routing where required
• Monitoring and alerting

Different providers may return inconsistent token data, transaction states or error messages. The wallet should normalize responses before presenting them to users.

Indexing and Portfolio Layer

RPC endpoints alone may not provide the portfolio experience users expect.

Indexing services may be required for:

• Token balances
• NFT ownership
• Historical transactions
• DeFi positions
• Token metadata
• Market prices
• Spam-token detection
• Contract interactions
• Address activity

The wallet should distinguish indexed data from directly verified on-chain state, particularly when users are about to sign a transaction.

Transaction Layer

The transaction layer coordinates:

• Fee estimation
• Nonce or sequence management
• Transaction construction
• Simulation
• Signing
• Broadcasting
• Confirmation tracking
• Replacement or acceleration where supported
• Failure recovery

Transaction status should not be reduced to a simple pending or completed state.

The product may need to represent:

• Created
• Awaiting approval
• Signed
• Submitted
• Pending
• Confirmed
• Failed
• Dropped
• Replaced
• Reverted

Single-Chain vs Multi-Chain Wallets

A single-chain wallet can provide deeper support for one ecosystem with lower initial complexity.

A multi-chain wallet is more suitable when the product must serve users across several networks, aggregate portfolios or provide cross-chain activity from one interface.

Custodial vs Non-Custodial Wallet Models

The custody model should be defined before selecting the technology stack.

Custodial Wallets

In a custodial wallet, the operator controls the keys or signing infrastructure on behalf of users.

This model can support:

• Account recovery
• Internal transfers
• Compliance controls
• Withdrawal review
• Transaction limits
• Centralized customer support

However, it also places significant security and operational responsibility on the operator.

Non-Custodial Wallets

In a non-custodial wallet, the user controls the signing authority.

The wallet provider may supply the interface, RPC access, indexing and swap integrations, but it cannot move funds without the user’s authorization.

The product must provide clear recovery guidance because a lost seed phrase or inaccessible signing device may result in permanent loss of access.

MPC Wallets

Multi-party computation distributes signing responsibility across multiple cryptographic shares.

No single device or service needs to hold the complete private key during the signing process.

MPC can support institutional controls, embedded wallet experiences and recovery models, but it introduces additional infrastructure, policy and availability requirements.

Multisignature Wallets

Multisignature wallets require a defined number of independent signers before a transaction can be executed.

They are often appropriate for:

• Company treasuries
• Protocol administration
• Investment funds
• High-value withdrawals
• Shared custody

MPC and multisignature should not be treated as interchangeable. Multisignature is normally visible in the on-chain authorization model, while MPC coordinates signature generation before submitting a conventional transaction.

Smart-Contract Wallets

Smart-contract wallets use programmable account logic.

Depending on the implementation, they may provide:

• Gas sponsorship
• Batch transactions
• Spending limits
• Session keys
• Recovery guardians
• Multiple signers
• Role-based permissions
• Custom validation logic

The account contract and supporting infrastructure must be tested carefully because an error in authorization or upgrade logic can affect every wallet using that implementation.

Blockchain Compatibility and Chain Adapters

Supporting more chains does not simply mean adding more RPC URLs.

EVM-Compatible Networks

Ethereum-compatible chains usually share address formats, smart-contract standards and similar transaction structures.

A shared EVM adapter can often support:

• Native transfers
• ERC-20 tokens
• ERC-721 and ERC-1155 NFTs
• Contract interactions
• EIP-1559 fee fields
• WalletConnect sessions
• Transaction simulation

However, the implementation must still account for differences in RPC behaviour, gas markets, chain IDs, token lists, explorer links and contract availability.

Bitcoin and Other UTXO Networks

Bitcoin transactions spend unspent transaction outputs and normally return unused value through a change output. A wallet therefore needs coin-selection logic, change-address management and fee estimation rather than an account nonce.

The wallet should also manage:

• Address formats
• Confirmation policies
• Replace-by-fee where applicable
• Dust limits
• UTXO consolidation
• Privacy implications
• Hardware-wallet compatibility

Solana

Solana stores network state in accounts, while transactions contain instructions for programs that read or modify those accounts. Transactions require a fee payer, and fees may include a base fee plus an optional prioritization fee.

A Solana adapter may need to handle:

• Associated token accounts
• Versioned transactions
• Address lookup tables
• Compute budgets
• Priority fees
• Recent blockhash expiration
• Program-derived addresses
• Token extensions

Sui and Move-Based Networks

Sui uses an object-centric data model in which on-chain assets and state are represented as objects with specific ownership rules. Transactions must reference the relevant objects and their current versions.

A Sui adapter must therefore account for:

• Object ownership
• Object versions
• Gas objects
• Programmable transaction blocks
• Chain-specific signing
• Coin-object selection
• Shared and immutable objects

A generic EVM transaction builder cannot be reused unchanged for this model.

Cosmos SDK Networks

Cosmos SDK chains are assembled from application modules that define accounts, transfers, governance and other transaction types. Transactions can include one or more messages, while authentication modules manage account and sequence validation.

A Cosmos adapter may need:

• Chain registry information
• Bech32 address prefixes
• Gas-price configuration
• Account sequence handling
• Protobuf transaction encoding
• Staking and governance messages
• IBC transfer support

XRP Ledger

XRP Ledger wallets must account for destination tags and reserve requirements.

Destination tags allow businesses and exchanges to distinguish customers while using a shared address. Accounts also need to maintain a base reserve, with additional reserve requirements for certain owned ledger objects.

The wallet should validate destination-tag requirements before signing a payment because sending funds without the required tag can create a difficult recovery process.

Account Abstraction for EVM Wallets

Account abstraction allows wallets to add programmable authorization and user-experience features beyond a conventional externally owned account.

Two important approaches are ERC-4337 and EIP-7702. They are related but use different transaction models.

ERC-4337 Smart Accounts

ERC-4337 introduces account abstraction without replacing Ethereum’s normal consensus transaction type.

Instead of submitting a standard transaction directly, the user creates a UserOperation. Bundlers collect these operations and submit them through an EntryPoint contract.

An ERC-4337 implementation may include:

• Smart-account contracts
• UserOperations
• Bundlers
• EntryPoint contracts
• Paymasters
• Account factories
• Nonce management
• Signature-validation modules

This architecture can enable:

• Sponsored gas
• Alternative fee tokens
• Batch execution
• Social recovery
• Multiple signers
• Session keys
• Spending policies
• Custom authentication

The wallet team must also plan for bundler reliability, paymaster funding, smart-contract upgrades and compatibility across supported EVM networks.

EIP-7702 for Existing Accounts

EIP-7702 allows an externally owned account to delegate execution to smart-contract code while retaining its existing address.

The mechanism adds an authorization list through a new transaction type, allowing an EOA to temporarily gain programmable account functionality.

Potential wallet capabilities include:

• Batched actions
• Sponsored transactions
• Restricted sub-keys
• Custom execution logic
• Improved application onboarding

ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 should not be presented as identical solutions.

ERC-4337 uses smart accounts and an alternative UserOperation flow. EIP-7702 adds delegated code functionality to an existing EOA.

The correct choice depends on account migration, ecosystem compatibility, infrastructure requirements and the user experience the wallet needs to provide.

Essential Multi-Chain Wallet Features

Wallet Creation and Import

Users should be able to:

• Create a new wallet
• Import an existing recovery phrase
• Import individual private keys where appropriate
• Connect hardware wallets
• Restore supported accounts
• Discover addresses across configured derivation paths

The recovery process must clearly explain which networks and accounts will be restored.

Multi-Chain Portfolio

The portfolio should display:

• Native assets
• Fungible tokens
• NFTs
• Network-specific balances
• Market values
• Recent activity
• Hidden or spam assets
• DeFi positions where supported

Indexed portfolio data should never replace direct transaction validation before signing.

Send and Receive

The transaction interface should include:

• Address validation
• QR-code support
• Network detection
• Fee estimation
• Memo or destination-tag fields
• Token approval warnings
• Balance and fee checks
• Transaction review
• Confirmation tracking

Token and NFT Discovery

Automatic discovery improves usability, but it can expose users to spam assets and malicious metadata.

The wallet should support:

• Verified token lists
• User-added tokens
• Spam filtering
• Token hiding
• Metadata validation
• Network-specific NFT standards

dApp Connectivity

WalletConnect or chain-specific connection protocols allow users to interact with decentralized applications.

The wallet should show:

• Requested permissions
• Connected network
• Requesting domain
• Transaction details
• Session duration
• Active sessions
• Revocation controls

Transaction Simulation

Simulation helps the wallet explain the expected effect of a transaction before the user signs it.

A simulation system may identify:

• Asset transfers
• Token approvals
• Contract calls
• Balance changes
• Suspicious permissions
• Likely transaction failures
• Unexpected recipient changes

Simulation results should be presented as risk indicators rather than guarantees.

Notifications

Useful notifications include:

• Incoming transfers
• Confirmed transactions
• Failed transactions
• Security alerts
• WalletConnect requests
• Price alerts
• Token approvals
• Account activity from another device

Recovery and Device Management

The product should define:

• Seed-phrase backup
• Cloud-assisted recovery, where appropriate
• Guardian recovery
• MPC recovery
• Device revocation
• Session expiry
• PIN reset rules
• Account re-authentication

Cross-Chain Swaps and Bridge Integrations

A multi-chain wallet may integrate decentralized exchanges, aggregators and bridges.

These features should remain separate from the core signing and key-management layer.

Same-Chain Swaps

Same-chain swaps may use:

• DEX routers
• Aggregators
• Liquidity protocols
• Token-approval contracts
• Quote services

The wallet should show:

• Expected output
• Price impact
• Network fee
• Protocol fee
• Minimum received
• Route
• Required approvals

Cross-Chain Swaps

Cross-chain swaps may involve:

• Bridge contracts
• Liquidity networks
• Intent solvers
• Relayers
• Wrapped assets
• Destination-chain execution

The interface should explain:

• Which protocol holds or routes the assets
• Whether an intermediary or wrapped token is involved
• Expected completion time
• Recovery procedure
• Source and destination fees
• Bridge-specific risk

A bridge integration should not inherit the same trust label as the wallet’s core key-management system.

Multi-Chain Wallet Security Requirements

Security should be part of the architecture from the first development phase.

Private-Key Protection

Private keys and seed material should be protected through controls such as:

• Encrypted local vaults
• Hardware-backed storage
• Secure Enclave on supported Apple devices
• Android Keystore
• Strict memory handling
• Screen-capture protection where appropriate
• Clipboard warnings
• Automatic session locking
• Export authentication

OWASP’s smart-contract security controls emphasize secure private-key handling, signature verification and multisignature controls for critical operations.

Transaction Verification

Before signing, the wallet should verify:

• Network
• Recipient
• Asset
• Amount
• Fee
• Contract
• Approval scope
• Destination tag or memo
• Expected balance changes

Address-Poisoning Protection

Attackers may send small transactions from addresses that resemble a legitimate recipient.

The wallet can reduce this risk through:

• Full-address confirmation
• Trusted address books
• Similar-address warnings
• Contact verification
• New-recipient confirmation

Malicious Token and NFT Filtering

The wallet should detect or hide assets associated with:

• Phishing URLs
• Malicious metadata
• Impersonated brands
• Unexpected approvals
• Scam airdrops

RPC and Data Validation

The wallet should not blindly trust one RPC or indexing response for sensitive actions.

Important values may be verified against:

• Multiple providers
• Local transaction simulation
• Direct contract calls
• Known network configuration
• Signed token lists

Dependency Security

Wallet applications depend on SDKs, cryptography libraries, mobile packages and browser-extension dependencies.

The team should implement:

• Dependency pinning
• Software composition analysis
• Release signing
• Build reproducibility where possible
• Secret scanning
• Package review
• Controlled update procedures

Smart-Contract Security

Smart accounts, paymasters, swap contracts and bridge integrations expand the attack surface.

The development process should include:

• Threat modelling
• Unit and integration testing
• Static analysis
• Fuzz testing
• Testnet validation
• Independent review
• Upgrade and pause controls where justified

The OWASP Smart Contract Top 10 provides a current security reference for common smart-contract vulnerabilities and access-control failures.

Mobile and Browser-Extension Threat Models

Mobile and browser-extension wallets face different risks.

Mobile risks may include:

• Compromised devices
• Insecure backups
• Screen overlays
• Malicious keyboards
• Debug builds
• Rooted or jailbroken devices

Browser-extension risks may include:

• Phishing websites
• Malicious extensions
• Permission abuse
• Content-script injection
• Dependency compromise
• Fake transaction requests

Each application platform should have its own security review.

Recommended Technology Stack

The technology stack should follow the required platforms, networks and custody model.

Client Applications

• Flutter or React Native for cross-platform mobile applications
• Swift and Kotlin for deeper native security integration
• React and TypeScript for web applications
• Manifest V3 architecture for browser extensions
• Native secure-storage APIs
• Hardware-wallet SDKs where required

EVM Integration

• viem or ethers.js
• WalletConnect
• EVM RPC providers
• Transaction simulation services
• Account-abstraction SDKs where required
• Contract-event indexing

Non-EVM Integration

• Official or well-maintained Solana SDKs
• Bitcoin transaction and PSBT libraries
• Sui and Aptos SDKs
• Cosmos SDK-compatible clients
• XRPL client libraries
• Network-specific hardware-wallet integrations

Backend

• Node.js or NestJS
• PostgreSQL
• Redis
• Event queues
• Notification services
• RPC-provider abstraction
• Token and price indexing
• Analytics and monitoring
• Feature-flag management

A fully non-custodial wallet may minimize backend signing responsibilities, but it still usually requires backend services for portfolio aggregation, notifications, token metadata, configuration and fraud monitoring.

Infrastructure

• Managed cloud infrastructure
• Secrets management
• Web application firewall
• API rate limiting
• Centralized logging
• Error tracking
• Provider health monitoring
• CI/CD security checks
• Separate development, staging and production environments

Multi-Chain Wallet Development Cost

The cost depends on supported networks, platforms, custody design, integrations, security requirements and product depth.

The ranges below are indicative Macromodule estimates, not fixed quotations.

Main Cost Factors

• Number and type of supported blockchains
• Mobile, web, desktop and extension platforms
• Custodial or non-custodial architecture
• MPC or multisignature integration
• Account abstraction
• Swap and bridge integrations
• NFT support
• Portfolio indexing
• Transaction simulation
• Fiat on-ramp integration
• Compliance requirements
• Independent security review
• Hardware-wallet support
• Post-launch monitoring

A three-chain EVM-only MVP is materially simpler than a wallet supporting Bitcoin, Solana, Sui, XRP Ledger and multiple EVM networks.

Multi-Chain Wallet Development Process

1. Define the Product and Custody Model

Establish:

• Target users
• Supported platforms
• Custody model
• Recovery model
• Revenue model
• Primary wallet workflows
• Compliance responsibilities

2. Prioritize Supported Networks

Select the first networks based on:

• User demand
• Product use case
• Liquidity
• dApp ecosystem
• Integration complexity
• Infrastructure availability
• Security requirements

Do not add a network only to increase the chain count.

3. Design the Wallet Core and Adapter Interface

Define the shared transaction, account and portfolio interfaces before implementing individual networks.

4. Implement Key Management

Build and test:

• Wallet generation
• Import
• Derivation
• Secure storage
• Signing
• Backup
• Recovery
• Device authentication

5. Build Chain Adapters

Implement each network separately with dedicated tests for:

• Addresses
• Fees
• Signing
• Transaction construction
• Broadcasting
• Confirmation
• Tokens
• Errors

6. Add Portfolio and Indexing

Integrate token balances, metadata, history and pricing without making the signing process dependent on unverified indexed data.

7. Add dApp, Swap and Bridge Features

Introduce external protocols after the core wallet and transaction flows are stable.

8. Conduct Security Testing

Test:

• Key handling
• Transaction manipulation
• API permissions
• RPC failures
• Malicious dApp requests
• Deep links
• Clipboard attacks
• Session hijacking
• Dependency compromise
• Smart contracts

9. Validate on Testnets

Run normal, failed and adversarial scenarios across every supported network.

10. Roll Out Mainnet Support Gradually

Use:

• Limited user cohorts
• Feature flags
• Transaction monitoring
• Provider health alerts
• Emergency-disable controls
• Documented incident response

How to Choose a Multi-Chain Wallet Development Company

Evaluate a development partner based on its ability to deliver a secure product across the complete wallet stack.

Look for experience in:

• EVM and non-EVM integration
• Mobile and browser-extension development
• Secure key management
• Smart contracts
• Account abstraction
• Transaction simulation
• WalletConnect
• RPC and indexing infrastructure
• Security testing
• Mainnet deployment
• Post-launch monitoring

A provider should be able to explain how it separates wallet-core logic from chain-specific adapters and how it prevents third-party integrations from gaining unnecessary access to signing functions.

Review Macromodule’s blockchain wallet development capabilities, blockchain development services and Web3 development services for related implementation options.

Teams that already have product leadership but need additional engineering capacity can also use blockchain staff augmentation to add wallet, smart-contract, backend, mobile or QA specialists.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a multi-chain wallet?

A multi-chain wallet allows users to manage assets and transactions across more than one blockchain network through a single application.

The wallet still requires separate integration logic for networks with different account models, signing methods and fee systems.

Which blockchains should a wallet support first?

The first networks should follow the target users and product use case.

An EVM-focused wallet may begin with Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain or Polygon through a shared adapter. A broader consumer wallet may add Bitcoin and Solana. Sui, XRP Ledger, Cosmos, Tron or other networks should be added when they support a clear product requirement.

How long does multi-chain wallet development take?

A basic three-network MVP may require approximately 10 to 16 weeks.

A broader DeFi, smart-account or institutional wallet may require several months because of additional networks, integrations, security controls and testing.

How much does multi-chain wallet development cost?

An indicative MVP may start between $25,000 and $60,000.

Advanced consumer or institutional wallets may range from $60,000 to more than $500,000 depending on custody, networks, security, smart-account features and compliance requirements.

Is a non-custodial wallet more secure than a custodial wallet?

Neither model is automatically more secure.

A non-custodial wallet reduces the operator’s direct control over user funds but places recovery and device-security responsibility on the user.

A custodial wallet can provide managed recovery and withdrawal controls but creates a larger centralized security and operational responsibility for the operator.

What is the difference between MPC and multisignature?

Multisignature requires multiple independent keys or accounts to authorize an on-chain transaction.

MPC distributes the cryptographic signing process across multiple shares and can produce a conventional network signature without reconstructing the full key in one location.

Does a multi-chain wallet need smart contracts?

Basic send, receive and portfolio functions do not always require custom smart contracts.

Smart contracts may be required for account abstraction, recovery, multisignature control, swaps, bridges, staking, token systems or other programmable features.

Can one seed phrase work across multiple blockchains?

A deterministic seed can derive accounts for multiple compatible networks, but each network may use different derivation paths, key algorithms and address formats.

The wallet must implement and test each chain’s derivation and signing requirements separately.

What is the difference between a cross-chain wallet and a multi-chain wallet?

A multi-chain wallet can display and manage assets on several networks.

A cross-chain wallet also provides workflows that move or exchange value between networks through bridges, liquidity networks or intent-based systems.

Should a wallet support ERC-4337 or EIP-7702?

ERC-4337 is suitable when the product uses dedicated smart accounts and supporting bundler or paymaster infrastructure.

EIP-7702 is relevant when existing Ethereum accounts need delegated smart-account functionality without moving assets to a new address.

Some wallet products may eventually support both models.

Build a Secure Multi-Chain Wallet

A successful wallet requires more than a polished interface.

The product must combine secure key management, chain-specific transaction logic, reliable infrastructure, clear risk communication and a maintainable architecture that can support additional networks over time.

Macromodule Technologies helps businesses:

• Design multi-chain wallet architecture
• Build non-custodial and custodial wallets
• Integrate EVM and non-EVM networks
• Implement account abstraction
• Add swaps, bridges and dApp connectivity
• Build MPC and multisignature workflows
• Develop mobile apps and browser extensions
• Conduct security testing and audit preparation
• Deploy and monitor production infrastructure

Explore our blockchain development services or review our blockchain and Web3 portfolio.

Planning a Multi-Chain Wallet Product?

Share your target users, application platforms, custody model, required networks and feature priorities.

Macromodule Technologies can review the scope and prepare a phased architecture, delivery timeline and development estimate.

Discuss Your Wallet Project