To provide a comprehensive analysis of Glass Wallet (official website: https://glasswallet.app/) based on the requested criteria, I will evaluate available information across multiple dimensions, including online complaints, risk assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting analysis, social media presence, red flags, regulatory status, user precautions, and potential brand confusion. Since specific data on Glass Wallet is limited in the provided references, I will rely on general insights from the cryptocurrency wallet and broker ecosystem, supplemented by logical inferences and industry-standard practices. Where direct evidence is unavailable, I will note the lack of information and suggest areas for further investigation.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

• Findings: No specific complaints about Glass Wallet were identified in the provided references or through a general web search within the scope of this analysis. Cryptocurrency wallets, in general, are frequent targets for user complaints due to issues like fund losses, phishing scams, or poor customer support.
• Analysis: The absence of complaints could indicate that Glass Wallet is either relatively new, has a small user base, or maintains a low profile. However, this does not confirm its legitimacy, as scam platforms may suppress negative feedback or operate under the radar initially. Users should monitor platforms like Trustpilot, Reddit, or crypto forums (e.g., BitcoinTalk) for emerging complaints.
• Recommendation: Check user reviews on third-party platforms and monitor Glass Wallet’s reputation over time. Be cautious if negative feedback is systematically removed or if only overly positive reviews appear, as this could indicate manipulation.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

• General Context: Cryptocurrency wallets face significant risks, including phishing attacks, malware (e.g., SpyAgent targeting recovery phrases), and smart contract vulnerabilities. Glass Wallet, as a non-custodial wallet (assumed based on industry norms), likely gives users full control over private keys, increasing user responsibility for security.
• Risk Indicators:
• High-Risk Transactions: Wallets interacting with decentralized applications (dApps) or DeFi platforms are vulnerable to scams like liquidity mining frauds promising unrealistic returns (1%–10% daily).
• User Error: Loss of recovery phrases or approving malicious transactions can lead to asset theft.
• Lack of Transparency: If Glass Wallet does not provide clear documentation on its security protocols or audit history, it could elevate risk.
• Assessment: Without specific data on Glass Wallet’s security features or incident history, I assign a moderate to high risk level due to the inherent vulnerabilities of crypto wallets. Users must verify if Glass Wallet implements robust security (e.g., multi-signature support, MPC wallets) or has been audited.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

• Website: https://glasswallet.app/
• Security Features:
• HTTPS Protocol: The website uses HTTPS, indicating SSL/TLS encryption, which is standard for protecting data in transit.
• Security Headers: Without direct access to the site’s headers, I cannot confirm the presence of Content Security Policy (CSP), Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS), or X-Frame-Options. These are critical for preventing XSS attacks and clickjacking.
• Vulnerability Testing: Industry best practices (e.g., Glance’s use of BurpSuite and ZAPScan) suggest Glass Wallet should regularly test for vulnerabilities. No evidence confirms this for Glass Wallet.
• Analysis: The use of HTTPS is a minimum requirement, but insufficient alone. Lack of public disclosure about security practices (e.g., penetration testing, bug bounties) is a concern. Compare this to platforms like Wallet Guard, which openly advertise security scans.
• Recommendation: Users should check for a security policy on the website and verify if Glass Wallet employs advanced protections like two-factor authentication (2FA) or biometric authentication. Avoid interacting if the site lacks transparency about its security framework.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

• Findings: A WHOIS lookup for glasswallet.app is not directly provided in the references, but tools like Who.is can reveal domain ownership, registration date, and registrar details.
• Expected Details:
• Domain Age: A newly registered domain (e.g., less than 6 months) is a potential red flag, as scam sites often use fresh domains to evade detection.
• Privacy Protection: Many legitimate services use WHOIS privacy to hide registrant details, but this can also obscure malicious actors.
• Registrar: Reputable registrars (e.g., GoDaddy, Namecheap) are preferred over obscure ones.
• Analysis: Without specific WHOIS data, I cannot assess Glass Wallet’s domain legitimacy. A domain registered recently or with hidden ownership could indicate higher risk, especially if paired with other red flags.
• Recommendation: Perform a WHOIS lookup using tools like Who.is or ICANN to verify domain age and registrant details. Be cautious if the domain was registered recently or uses an obscure registrar.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

• Findings: No specific IP or hosting data for glasswallet.app is available in the references. Hosting analysis typically involves checking the server’s location, provider, and shared hosting risks.
• Industry Context:
• Hosting Providers: Reputable providers like AWS, Cloudflare, or Google Cloud are common for legitimate platforms due to their security features.
• Shared Hosting: If glasswallet.app uses shared hosting, it could be vulnerable to attacks targeting other sites on the same server.
• Geolocation: Servers in high-risk jurisdictions (e.g., known for lax regulations) may raise concerns.
• Analysis: Without IP data, I cannot evaluate Glass Wallet’s hosting setup. Legitimate wallets typically use CDN services (e.g., Cloudflare) for DDoS protection and performance. Lack of such infrastructure could indicate a less secure setup.
• Recommendation: Use tools like SecurityTrails or VirusTotal to analyze the IP address and hosting provider. Avoid platforms hosted on low-cost, shared servers or in jurisdictions with poor regulatory oversight.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

• Findings: No specific social media data for Glass Wallet is provided. Cryptocurrency scams often exploit social media to promote fake giveaways or impersonate legitimate brands.
• Red Flags:
• Unverified Accounts: Accounts lacking verification (e.g., Twitter/X blue check) or with misspellings (e.g., “Etereum” instead of “Ethereum”) are suspicious.
• Fake Engagement: Bots or purchased followers can inflate an account’s credibility.
• Aggressive Marketing: Promises of high returns or exclusive groups on Telegram/WhatsApp are common scam tactics.
• Analysis: If Glass Wallet’s social media presence is minimal, unverified, or overly promotional, it could signal risk. Legitimate wallets like Trust Wallet maintain active, transparent accounts with developer updates and community engagement.
• Recommendation: Verify Glass Wallet’s official social media accounts via the website. Check for consistent branding, regular updates, and genuine user interaction. Avoid engaging with accounts that lack verification or push unrealistic promises.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

• Identified Red Flags (based on general crypto wallet risks):
• Lack of Transparency: If Glass Wallet does not disclose its team, security audits, or regulatory compliance, it raises concerns.
• No Audit Verification: Smart contracts (if used) must be audited to prevent exploits. Unaudited contracts are high-risk.
• Impersonation Risk: The name “Glass Wallet” could be confused with Glassnode, a well-known crypto analytics platform, potentially leading to brand confusion scams.
• Phishing Vulnerabilities: Fake websites mimicking glasswallet.app (e.g., using similar URLs) could trick users into connecting wallets.
• Analysis: The absence of specific red flags in the data does not clear Glass Wallet, as many scams operate discreetly initially. The potential for brand confusion with Glassnode is a notable risk, as scammers may exploit this to create fake apps or websites.
• Recommendation: Look for public audits, team bios, and clear communication on the website. Be wary of unsolicited messages or links directing you to connect your wallet.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

• Expected Content:
• Transparency: Legitimate wallets provide details on security features, team members, and open-source code (if applicable).
• User Education: Guides on avoiding scams, securing recovery phrases, and revoking token approvals indicate a user-focused approach.
• Professional Design: Poor grammar, broken links, or amateurish design are red flags.
• Analysis: Without direct access to glasswallet.app’s content, I cannot evaluate its quality. Compare Glass Wallet to Trust Wallet, which offers a polished interface, security scanner, and educational resources. If Glass Wallet lacks these, it may be less trustworthy.
• Recommendation: Inspect the website for professional design, clear documentation, and security-focused content. Avoid platforms with vague promises or missing contact information.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

• Findings: No regulatory information is provided for Glass Wallet. Non-custodial wallets are generally less regulated than custodial ones, as they do not hold user funds. However, they must still comply with AML/CFT standards in some jurisdictions.
• Regulatory Context:
• AML/CFT Compliance: Wallets must screen for sanctioned entities or high-risk transactions.
• KYC Requirements: Non-custodial wallets typically avoid KYC, but this can attract criminal use.
• Jurisdiction: Operating in a regulated jurisdiction (e.g., US, EU) suggests accountability.
• Analysis: If Glass Wallet is non-custodial, it may not require extensive licensing, but it should still implement wallet screening to comply with global standards. Lack of regulatory disclosure is a concern, especially if the platform operates in a high-risk jurisdiction.
• Recommendation: Check the website’s footer or “About” page for regulatory details. Contact support to confirm compliance with AML/CFT or sanctions lists.

10. User Precautions ¶

• Recommended Actions:
• Secure Recovery Phrases: Store phrases offline in a cold wallet or secure vault. Never screenshot or share them.
• Verify URLs: Type glasswallet.app directly into the browser to avoid phishing sites. Check for HTTPS and correct spelling.
• Limit Token Approvals: Use tools like Revoke.cash to monitor and revoke unnecessary dApp permissions.
• Use Cold Wallets: Store significant assets in offline wallets (e.g., Ledger, Trezor) to reduce hacking risks.
• Enable 2FA: If Glass Wallet supports 2FA, enable it to add an extra security layer.
• Monitor Transactions: Regularly check wallet activity using blockchain explorers like Etherscan or Solscan.
• Analysis: These precautions apply to any crypto wallet but are critical for Glass Wallet given the lack of specific security data. Users bear the primary responsibility for protecting assets in non-custodial wallets.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

• Risk: The name “Glass Wallet” is similar to “Glassnode,” a reputable crypto analytics platform. Scammers could exploit this by creating fake apps, websites, or social media accounts mimicking Glass Wallet to steal funds.
• Examples:
• A fake app posing as WalletConnect stole over $70,000 by mimicking a trusted brand.
• Scammers often use slightly altered URLs or names to deceive users.
• Analysis: Brand confusion is a significant risk, especially if Glass Wallet is less established than Glassnode. Users may mistakenly interact with fraudulent platforms assuming they are legitimate.
• Recommendation: Always verify the official website (https://glasswallet.app/) and app store listings. Cross-check social media handles and be cautious of unsolicited promotions claiming affiliation with Glass Wallet or Glassnode.

Summary and Risk Evaluation ¶

• Overall Risk Level: Moderate to High due to the lack of specific information on Glass Wallet’s security, regulatory status, and reputation. The crypto wallet space is inherently risky, and Glass Wallet’s potential for brand confusion with Glassnode increases its vulnerability to scams.
• Key Concerns:
• No documented complaints or security incidents, but also no evidence of robust security practices or audits.
• Potential brand confusion with Glassnode could be exploited by malicious actors.
• Lack of WHOIS, IP, or regulatory data limits transparency.
• User Actions:
• Conduct due diligence: Verify domain age, hosting, and social media authenticity.
• Prioritize security: Use cold wallets, enable 2FA, and limit token approvals.
• Monitor reputation: Watch for emerging complaints or red flags on crypto forums.

Limitations ¶

• The analysis is constrained by the absence of direct data on Glass Wallet’s operations, security, or user feedback.
• WHOIS and IP analysis require real-time tools, which were not accessed here.
• Social media and complaint data may exist outside the provided references but were not captured.

Next Steps ¶

• For Users: Perform a WHOIS lookup, check Glass Wallet’s social media for authenticity, and review the website for security disclosures. Test the platform with small transactions before committing significant funds.
• For Further Research: Use tools like VirusTotal, SecurityTrails, or Etherscan to analyze the website and wallet addresses. Search crypto-specific complaint platforms (e.g., CryptoScamDB) for Glass Wallet mentions. If you need assistance with specific tools (e.g., WHOIS lookup, blockchain explorer) or want me to analyze a particular aspect in more depth, let me know!