Author

Topic: CoolWallet S or FuzeW? (Read 122 times)

newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
July 08, 2018, 01:31:19 AM
#4
Both have interesting names. But that is where the comparison should end. The largest distinctions between these two products is the two companies' background.

I bought BrilliantTS FuzeX card last year and what a joke - the thing broke in like 5 minutes. When I slightly bent the card, I heard a *click*  and the ink bled into the screen and wouldn't turn on. I would have considered this to be a one-off issue until I did some digging. These guys are chameleons - two different companies using the same name to deliver different business products...weird. They've raised over US $65,906,238 (!!!) since May 2017 without delivering a real, usable product.  Now they want to fool us again and put money into a pre-order sale for a hardware wallet that seems to be a complete copy-cat of the cool wallet. I mean, come on...

I met the cool wallet team and their product in New York - legit product and focused team. Can't say much about their product other than they have been literally focused on building the wallet since 2014 - any firm that has stayed around for that long has something going for them. I think they're financially backed by SBI and Bitmain too.
 
I am going to post numerous negative social media comments left in the wake of Fuze scammy fundraising projects below:

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/04/06/fuze-card-bluetooth-hack-exposes-credit-card-data/#67123f023661
2.https://www.facebook.com/pg/fuzecard/posts/?ref=page_internal
- Literally every comment on their Facebook group is extremely negative.  
3. https://www.facebook.com/fuzecard/posts/270513483414770
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8iu1t4/anyone_familiar_with_fuzex_fxt_it_became/
Last comment:

Quote
Yes, was about to invest in the ICO but after further inspection I didn't. The company who makes the card and the one that got funded by Indiegogo are two different companies although they use the same name.

The cryptocurrency company (don't even know why they needed so much money). Don't make the card the just buy it from the company who makes it.

FuzeW is just another BrilliantTS money grabbing scheme. $65,000,000 USD later and they have NOTHING to show for it. For all that is holy, stop giving money to these people!
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1140
June 29, 2018, 12:55:05 PM
#3
Well let’s compare the specs.

Price: Cool Wallet S- $189     FuzeW - $149  (If you reserve a copy you get it for $74.50)

I think the prices for these cards are a bit high compared to the USB wallets, though Trezor is around 149 EURO. That being said at $74.50 , that’s a really hard price to beat IMO.

Design: Coolwallet S – It is a bit thinner than the FuzeW judging from the pics alone. I don’t see any videos of the FuzeW but the images make it look slightly thicker and more durable than the CW S. The CW S is viewable in ‘portrait’ view while the FuzeW appears to be usable via ‘landscape’ view. It says FuzeW has an IP68 waterproof rating on the site which is nice. I wonder how it is compared to the CW S waterproof.

Battery: CW S has a 15 mAh and the FuzeW has a 13 mAh. I don't know how many minutes/hours the 2mAh translates too with current info.

Support: CW S currently supports BTC, ETH, LTC, XRP, BCH  and ERC20. The fuzeW seems to only support BTC and ETH and FXT (which I believe is their altcoin). They say they will offer future support for QTUM and XRP.

Security: Both are CC EAL5+ and have OTP function.

Honestly its hard to tell anything about the FuzeW at this moment aside from whats on their site. The card was made by BrilliantTS which also made the FuzeX so the credibility seems there. The price offering is cheaper and with the ongoing promotion I think it’s a huge deal. The design also looks to be premium with the added water resistance. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Good comparison.

I do only only head out about Coolwallet S but not on FuzeW. I didnt tend to engage or i dont really have any interest into these new things specially when they are priced higher compared into those who are well known into the market. How they would able to make a buzz if prices is way too high but still having almost the same usage or purpose.?
newbie
Activity: 15
Merit: 0
June 29, 2018, 01:11:40 AM
#2
Well let’s compare the specs.

Price: Cool Wallet S- $189     FuzeW - $149  (If you reserve a copy you get it for $74.50)

I think the prices for these cards are a bit high compared to the USB wallets, though Trezor is around 149 EURO. That being said at $74.50 , that’s a really hard price to beat IMO.

Design: Coolwallet S – It is a bit thinner than the FuzeW judging from the pics alone. I don’t see any videos of the FuzeW but the images make it look slightly thicker and more durable than the CW S. The CW S is viewable in ‘portrait’ view while the FuzeW appears to be usable via ‘landscape’ view. It says FuzeW has an IP68 waterproof rating on the site which is nice. I wonder how it is compared to the CW S waterproof.

Battery: CW S has a 15 mAh and the FuzeW has a 13 mAh. I don't know how many minutes/hours the 2mAh translates too with current info.

Support: CW S currently supports BTC, ETH, LTC, XRP, BCH  and ERC20. The fuzeW seems to only support BTC and ETH and FXT (which I believe is their altcoin). They say they will offer future support for QTUM and XRP.

Security: Both are CC EAL5+ and have OTP function.

Honestly its hard to tell anything about the FuzeW at this moment aside from whats on their site. The card was made by BrilliantTS which also made the FuzeX so the credibility seems there. The price offering is cheaper and with the ongoing promotion I think it’s a huge deal. The design also looks to be premium with the added water resistance. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
newbie
Activity: 23
Merit: 2
June 29, 2018, 12:57:19 AM
#1
So I was googling a bunch of card-style hard wallets, and CoolWallet S seemed legit but I also came across a reddit post about the upcoming FuzeW which seems like a newer option and a cheaper cost?

Jump to: