Web3 login
We implement Web3 login: signing into an application via a crypto-wallet (MetaMask etc.) with a message signature instead of a password. Honestly and bluntly upfront: Web3 login is appropriate only if you genuinely have a crypto audience or a Web3 scenario; for ordinary users it is a BARRIER, not convenience — an installed wallet, understanding of signatures are needed, and it is harder than the usual email login. It does NOT increase security automatically and carries its own risks: losing wallet access = losing login (no 'reset password'), and there is signature phishing risk. For a mass audience ordinary login (email/OAuth) is almost always simpler and more accessible. We will honestly assess whether you need Web3 login.
Web3 login — overview
Web3 login (Sign-In with Ethereum and analogs) is authentication via a crypto-wallet: the user connects a wallet (MetaMask, WalletConnect etc.) and signs a message with it, proving ownership of the address, without a password or email. It is convenient in Web3 apps where a wallet is needed anyway. Honestly about 'a barrier, not convenience for the masses', this is key: for ordinary, non-crypto users Web3 login is a serious barrier. You need to install a wallet extension/app, have an address, understand what a signature is, not be afraid of it. For a mass audience this sharply raises the entry threshold and loses users compared to the usual email/OAuth. Web3 login is appropriate where the audience is already in crypto and a wallet is there by default. Honestly about 'does not increase security automatically': Web3 login is not a password, but it is not 'more secure by definition' either. Security is now = the security of the user's wallet. If the wallet is compromised or the user signed a malicious message (phishing), it is a problem. Signatures on fake sites are a real attack vector in Web3. Honestly about loss of access: with wallet login there is no 'reset password via email'. Lose wallet access — lose login to the account (unless other methods are provided). This must be honestly accounted for in UX. Honestly about 'not instead of ordinary login for everyone': for most products with an ordinary audience Web3 login is not needed or should be only an additional option, not the only method. Forcing it on a mass audience is a mistake. Honestly about the effect: for a crypto audience/Web3 scenarios it gives convenient password-free login and binding to an address, but for ordinary users it is a barrier and not a security panacea. Honestly about access: a crypto audience or a real Web3 scenario is needed. An important boundary: this is Web3 login (wallet authentication); wallet — 1077; token gating of access — 1081; DID — 1085. The base price starts from 50,000 ₽ (depends on the number of wallets/networks).
Problems we solve
- A Web3 app where users already have a wallet — wallet login is logical.
- Binding an account to a crypto address without a password is needed.
- You want Web3 login for an ordinary audience — but it is an entry barrier.
- It is not accounted for that losing the wallet = losing access (no recovery).
What's included in the Web3 login service
- Web3 login implementation (wallet connection, message signing, verification)
- Support for popular wallets/networks (MetaMask, WalletConnect etc.)
- An honest assessment: is Web3 login needed or is ordinary login simpler for your audience
- Protection against signature phishing, user-clear messages
- An optional link with ordinary login (not the only method for the masses)
- Honest boundaries (a barrier for non-crypto; not more secure automatically; losing the wallet = losing login; phishing risks)
- Documentation and handover
- Review with you
What you get
- Login via a crypto-wallet without a password (for a crypto audience)
- Binding the account to a crypto address with signature protection
- An honest assessment: for a mass audience ordinary login is more accessible
- Honest boundaries (a barrier for ordinary users; not a security panacea; no recovery on wallet loss)
How the work goes: steps
- We assess the audience: crypto or ordinary (is Web3 login needed)
- We implement wallet connection, signing and verification with phishing protection
- We honestly set boundaries (recovery, barrier, risks) and hand over to you
Why PDV Expert
- Fixed price and timeline — no surprises on the invoice.
- Report and recommendations in plain language — clear without a technical background.
- In touch at every step and answering questions about the result.
FAQ
Is Web3 login more secure than ordinary password login?
Not automatically, honestly: Web3 login removes the password, but security is now = the security of the user's wallet. If the wallet is compromised or the user signed a malicious message on a fake site (phishing — a real Web3 vector), it is a problem. It is a different set of risks, not 'more secure by definition'. We add signature phishing protection but honestly do not pass Web3 login off as automatically more secure.
Should I make Web3 login for all users?
For an ordinary audience — no, honestly: Web3 login for non-crypto users is a serious barrier (an installed wallet, understanding of signatures are needed). It sharply raises the entry threshold and loses users compared to email/OAuth. It is appropriate where the audience is already in crypto. For a mass audience ordinary login is better, with Web3 login as just an option. We will honestly assess your audience.
What if a user loses access to the wallet?
Honestly: with wallet login there is no 'reset password via email'. Lose wallet access — lose login to the account, unless other login methods are provided. This is an important UX nuance to design consciously. We honestly warn about this and can add an alternative login rather than make the wallet the only and unrecoverable access point by default.
About the provider
The «Web3 login» service is provided by PDV Expert — a team specialising in «Tech trends». We work under contract and deliver a written report with recommendations.