I'd say that crypto personally held in a hardware wallet is less secure against the sort of frauds described in the article, where the victim personally authori

I'd say that crypto personally held in a hardware wallet is less secure against the sort of frauds described in the article, where the victim personally authorizes a transaction, because there's nobody you can even ask for a refund. But hardware-secured crypto is much more secure against unauthorized access (e.g. a SIM swap without the user's involvement). After getting familiar with crypto, it boggles my mind that we handle so many payments by giving full credentials to the payee and just trusting them not to abuse it or be careless with it. Public keys have been around since the 1970s. Why don't we give retailers a digital signature authorizing a specific transaction? Why are we still using insecure 2FA and user-supplied passwords for bank website access? Ideally, we'd put secure elements and social recovery wallets in all our phones, and use them for everything. It's what we need for crypto, but we could use the same tech as access control for banking systems.