Your Signer Will Change, Your Code Shouldn't Have To

Every Web3 company hits the same wall: your signer that worked perfectly at launch becomes your biggest bottleneck at scale. I've watched this pattern repeat for years at Ledger. Here's why it happens, and how to avoid it.
— Fabrice (CEO at Adamik)

Every chain you add, every signer you switch — your integration shouldn't break.

At Ledger, we saw this problem firsthand. A client would start with MetaMask or an early MPC provider. Then they'd add new chains, onboard enterprise clients, or face compliance shifts — and suddenly, their signing flow broke.

What should've been a fast scale-up turned into weeks of rewrites.

I remember one client who started with a simple Ledger hardware wallet integration. Six months later, they needed to support institutional flows and switch to a different technology (MPC) provider. What should have been a two-week migration turned into a two-month rewrite because every chain had different signing requirements. The worst part? Two years later they decided to switch to their on-premise HSM set-up, and they had to do it all over again.

That's the moment you realize: Your product is scaling, but your integration is locking you in.

Why Your Key Management Stack Will Evolve

Key management isn't a one-time decision. As you grow, it gets more complex:

Often, you'll need multiple signers in parallel — retail flows, staking, enterprise BYOK.

Each signer brings its own API, wallet generation logic, and signature flow. What works for MetaMask's JSON-RPC won't necessarily work for DFNS, and what works for DFNS won’t work for Ledger Enterprise (HSM).

Each signer adds surface area. Each change adds integration debt.

The Signer Trap

We call this the Signer Trap:

Changing signers means reworking logic across chains — every time.

Have you ever heard Fireblocks mention an additional fee for adding a new feature (such as staking), or Taurus charging you to add support for a new chain? They charge you, because you're out of options. You're trapped.

The Signer trap slows launches, blocks partnerships, and burns engineering cycles. And worst of all, it makes teams say "no" to opportunities they should be ready for.

Who Feels It Most

🔐 Custody Infra / KMS Vendors

Support more chains, serve more clients — without building signing logic 3x.

💼 Wallets

Move from MetaMask to Cosmos to Bitcoin without forking your codebase.

💸 Exchanges

List new assets, swap custody partners, or launch staking — without rewriting the underlying logic.

Adamik Is the Escape Hatch

That's why we built Adamik:

A universal blockchain API that works with any signer — now and as you scale.

• Full transaction construction for 60+ chains

• Signer-ready formats (raw bytes, JSON, PSBT, etc.)

• Transparent specs for curve, hashing, signature types

• Works with MPC, browser wallets, HSMs, or your custom infra

💡 If it can generate a public key and sign a transaction, Adamik can work with it. No rewrites needed.

You can use:

• Any browser extension (MetaMask for EVM, Keplr for Cosmos, Unisat for Bitcoin)

• Turnkey, DFNS, Sodot for policy-based MPC flows

• Hardware wallets and custom HSMs — with full control over serialization

At Ledger, if we had this approach, we could've onboarded enterprise clients in days instead of months. Every RFP asking 'can you support our HSM?' or 'we use Fireblocks, can you integrate?' would've been an immediate yes.

Architecture Snapshot

• 🔍 See exactly what you're signing

• 🔄 Switch signers anytime without changing your code

• ⚙️ Integrate once — adapt forever

Isn't Adamik vendor lock-in too?

Fair question. But here's the difference:

Adamik doesn't replace your signer. It removes the friction of using the one you want — now and in the future.

"But wait — aren't you just moving the lock-in from signers to Adamik?"

Valid concern. Here's why it's different:

Adamik provides transparent blockchain data. Every transaction we construct follows the chain's native specification — the same format you'd build manually. We return the raw transaction, the encoded formats, the signing payload. It's all standard, documented blockchain data.

Think of it this way:

• Signer lock-in: You can't move because your code depends on their proprietary API. Additionally, funds are already “secured” by the signer, making migration a difficult decision.

• Adamik: You can always take the transaction data we provide and use it anywhere — it's just blockchain-native formats.

If you wanted to migrate away from Adamik tomorrow and use your own construction logic, you'd have all the transaction construction logic documented in our responses. We aren't using any proprietary formats when crafting transaction, we are relying on open standards for blockchain transactions.

The real question isn't "am I locked in?" — it's "what am I locked into?" With signers, you're locked into proprietary flows. With Adamik, you're "locked into" standard blockchain formats that work everywhere.

Try It Yourself

Here's how teams are already using Adamik to stay signer-agnostic:

• Turnkey MPC Demo → Explore how Turnkey's MPC infra connects with Adamik for multichain ops

• Sodot Tutorial → See MPC signing in action using Adamik's flexible transaction builder

• Adamik-Link CLI → Forkable code examples using DFNS, Turnkey, and more

This Isn't a Niche Problem — It's an Inevitable One

Already juggling MetaMask, MPC, Ledger Hardware Wallets? You've hit the wall.

Still early with one signer?

You will hit the wall — when your clients, roadmap, or partners shift.

Adamik makes sure you don't have to rebuild your entire stack when it happens.

Ready to Escape the Signer Trap?

Adamik helps wallets, custodians, and exchanges:

• Integrate 60+ chains

• Support any signer

• Evolve your infra without rewriting it

Let's talk about your signer strategy.

One API. Any signer. Zero lock-in.