Foundation CEO Zach Herbert Pushes Local Assembly for Hardware Wallets

Foundation Devices CEO Zach Herbert is urging hardware wallet manufacturers to assemble devices locally and ship them factory-direct, arguing that every intermediary between the production line and the buyer widens the attack surface for supply chain tampering. His case rests on a hard precedent: an October 2026 supply chain breach involving Ledger devices, sold through resellers, tied to stolen funds estimated between $86 million and $100 million.

To put that figure in context, the losses approach the equivalent of a mid-sized exchange hack, spread across individual self-custody users who believed they had eliminated counterparty risk.

What exactly is Herbert proposing?

The co-founder's argument extends beyond geography. He advocates three measures:

• Local assembly, with devices built close to the buyer's market.
• Factory-direct shipping, cutting resellers out of the distribution chain.
• Physical tamper detection and open-source designs, so users can verify a device is what it claims to be.

Journalist Laura Shin highlighted Herbert's focus on local manufacturing in a November 13, 2026 statement, attributing the push to minimize supply chain vulnerabilities directly to him.

How does Foundation practice what it preaches?

Foundation builds its Passport hardware wallet line, including the newer Passport Prime model, entirely in the United States. Assembly takes place in an ITAR-certified facility, which the company says allows strong validation of its supply chain. The devices include active tamper circuitry designed to respond to physical interference, paired with open-source software designs.

The obvious caveat: Herbert is describing his own product strategy as the industry standard he wants competitors to adopt. That does not make the argument wrong, but the person making the case also sells the solution. Foundation's stance also runs against the industry's broader direction, where many wallet makers rely on overseas manufacturing and third-party reseller networks to scale production and reach more buyers.

In plain words: the advice is sound, and it is also a sales pitch.

Could the market split in two?

Herbert has offered a forward view: the hardware wallet market may segment into two distinct streams. The first would be high-security domestic products with trust-building features such as device bricking, where a wallet renders itself unusable if it detects tampering. The second would be DIY options, often used in multisig arrangements, which require more than one key to approve a transaction. If one device is compromised, an attacker still cannot move funds alone.

What Herbert has not detailed is cost. Domestic assembly and factory-direct logistics are expensive, and no pricing impact was quantified in his remarks.

What follows for buyers and builders?

For consumers, device provenance now deserves the same scrutiny as device features. Buying directly from a manufacturer rather than a reseller is the most obvious step Herbert's argument implies; verifying tamper detection and open-source code is another. For manufacturers, the pressure points are cost and scale, since tighter control cuts against the overseas production channels much of the industry depends on.

The takeaway for buyers is simple: ask where your device was assembled, and who touched it before it reached you.

Whether competitors follow Foundation's model or the market genuinely bifurcates will depend on whether the post-Ledger scrutiny of reseller channels persists into the next product cycle.