Hyper Wallet vs MPC Wallet: Choosing the Right Wallet Model for Security and Scale

When creating a wallet on Fystack, teams are presented with two distinct options: MPC Wallet and Hyper Wallet. These are not interchangeable wallet types. Each is designed to solve a different operational problem in digital asset custody, especially when systems need to scale beyond a handful of wallets.

At a high level:

• MPC Wallet prioritizes security and institutional-grade asset protection
• Hyper Wallet prioritizes deposit efficiency and massive end-user scalability

Understanding when and how to use each wallet type is critical for building a secure, scalable on-chain system.

High-Level Overview: Two Wallet Types, Two Different Roles

Fystack provides a dual-wallet model to match real-world operational needs:

• MPC Wallet: Designed as the core custody layer for organizations. This is where treasury funds, operational balances, and high-value assets are secured.
• Hyper Wallet: Designed for large-scale user deposits. This wallet type enables teams to create thousands or millions of deposit addresses efficiently without the overhead of creating a full MPC wallet for every user.

Rather than forcing teams to choose between security and scalability, Fystack separates these concerns at the wallet architecture level.

MPC Wallet: Institutional-Grade Security for Core Funds

Role and Purpose

MPC Wallets are used as host wallets or main vaults within an organization.They are responsible for holding and protecting the organization’s core funds.

This wallet type is typically used for:

• Treasury management
• Exchange hot wallets
• Operational funds
• Custody of large balances

How MPC Wallet Security Works

MPC Wallets rely on Multi-Party Computation (MPC) to eliminate single points of failure.

• Private keys never exist in full form
• Key material is split into multiple cryptographic shares
• Shares are distributed across independent nodes
• Transactions require a predefined threshold of approvals (for example, 2-of-3)

Even if one node is compromised, funds remain secure.

For teams evaluating MPC-based custody as part of a broader compliance and risk framework, this guide explains how institutional-grade MPC wallets support secure, auditable transaction workflows in production systems.

Target Users and Cost Positioning

Traditional MPC custody solutions in the market often target large enterprises with annual costs ranging from tens of thousands of dollars.

Fystack takes a different approach. It brings MPC-grade security to developers, startups, and small to mid-sized companies, allowing teams of 10 to 20 people to deploy secure custody infrastructure without heavy operational or financial overhead.

This architectural choice also reflects a broader shift away from SaaS custody models toward self-hosted infrastructure, especially for teams that want long-term control over keys, data, and compliance.

Hyper Wallet: Scalable Deposit Wallets for End Users

Role and Purpose

Hyper Wallets are designed to solve one specific problem: scaling user deposits.

In real-world applications, it is not feasible to create an MPC wallet for every end user.

For example:

• A crypto exchange with 1,000 users needs 1,000 deposit addresses
• A Web3 payment platform with 100,000 users needs 100,000 wallets

Hyper Wallets make this possible.

How Hyper Wallets Work

Hyper Wallets are deterministically derived wallets, optimized for instant creation and high-volume address management.

Key characteristics:

• Hyper Wallets are derived from a workspace-level seed phrase
• Each workspace has its own dedicated seed
• The workspace seed is protected by multiple layers of encryption
• Seeds are encrypted at rest using strong symmetric encryption
• Access to encryption keys is managed through secure key management systems

Wallet derivation follows standard paths (for example, BIP44 or SLIP-10 depending on chain)

Because wallets are derived rather than generated through interactive protocols, they can be created instantly and programmatically, without running MPC key generation for each address.

This design enables teams to create thousands or millions of wallets while maintaining a consistent and auditable key hierarchy.

Security Model

Hyper Wallets are built with a clear security boundary:

• They are optimized for deposit and lightweight operations
• They are not intended to hold large balances long-term
• Funds are expected to be consolidated into MPC Wallets

By isolating user-facing deposit wallets from the core custody layer, teams reduce the attack surface while preserving operational scalability.

MPC Wallet Latency and Scalability: What Teams Need to Know

A frequent question when designing custody systems is:

“If MPC wallets are the most secure option, why not use MPC wallets for every user?”

The answer lies in latency and computational cost, not security weaknesses.

MPC Is Interactive by Design

MPC wallets rely on interactive threshold cryptography protocols. Unlike single-key wallets, MPC operations require multiple parties to coordinate cryptographically for both key generation and signing.

Each MPC wallet involves:

• Distributed Key Generation (DKG)
• Multiple cryptographic rounds
• Encrypted peer-to-peer communication
• Persistent state per wallet
• Coordination across independent nodes

This design is intentional. It maximizes security and fault tolerance, but it introduces measurable latency and infrastructure cost.

MPC Key Generation Latency (DKG)

Creating an MPC wallet is not a constant-time operation.

Typical production latency per MPC wallet:

This latency is per wallet.

Creating:

• 1 wallet → fine
• 1,000 wallets → noticeable
• 100,000 wallets → operationally infeasible

Key generation also cannot be parallelized infinitely due to CPU, memory, and network constraints. Failures require retries, which further increase cost.

MPC Signing Latency (Per Transaction)

Each MPC signature requires interactive signing rounds.

Typical signing latency per transaction:

This is acceptable for:

• Treasury operations
• Hot wallets
• Operational transfers

But it becomes problematic when multiplied across thousands or millions of user wallets.

Why MPC Does Not Scale Per End User

Using MPC wallets per user introduces a multiplicative cost problem:

• Every wallet has permanent MPC state
• Every signing operation consumes coordinated CPU and network resources
• Concurrency increases non-linearly
• Infrastructure cost grows faster than user growth

In contrast, non-MPC wallets:

• Generate keys instantly
• Have near-zero signing latency
• Are stateless or lightweight
• Scale to millions of addresses

This is why no large exchange or payment system uses MPC wallets for individual deposit addresses.

How MPC Wallets and Hyper Wallets Work Together

Fystack is built around a hybrid custody model.

In practice, most teams use both wallet types together.

A common setup looks like this:

• Hyper Wallets are created for each end user to receive deposits
• MPC Wallets act as the secure central vault
• Funds are periodically consolidated from Hyper Wallets into the MPC Wallet

Automated Fund Management with Gas Station

To support large-scale operations, Fystack includes built-in automation mechanisms such as gas management and balance-based triggers, removing the need for manual fund handling.

In a typical workflow, Hyper Wallets are used as deposit endpoints for end users. When a Hyper Wallet receives funds, the system continuously monitors its balance against predefined thresholds configured by the team.

Once a wallet balance reaches the specified threshold:

• Gas fees are automatically provisioned through Fystack’s Gas Station
• No manual intervention is required to fund the wallet for transaction execution
• Assets are then programmatically consolidated into the designated MPC Wallet

This automated flow enables teams to:

• Maintain clean and predictable fund consolidation from user-facing wallets into the core custody layer
• Reduce operational risk caused by missed balances, delayed transfers, or manual errors
• Preserve centralized treasury control, while still supporting high-volume, decentralized deposit activity

By separating deposit scalability from treasury security, Fystack allows funds to move seamlessly from Hyper Wallets into MPC Wallets - ensuring that growth in user activity does not introduce additional custody or operational complexity.

Core Comparison: Hyper Wallet vs MPC Wallet

For teams building stablecoin or payment-focused platforms, choosing the right non-custodial custody architecture is critical. This overview compares leading non-custodial solutions and the operational trade-offs behind them.

Technical Details for Teams That Need Deeper Control

Hyper Wallet Technical Highlights

• Key derivation standards: BIP44 for EVM and Tron, SLIP-10 for Solana and Aptos
• Data encryption at rest using AES-256-GCM
• Each workspace uses a dedicated workspace seed
• Seeds are protected by a global encryption key managed through secure key management systems

MPC Wallet Technical Highlights

• Threshold signing model such as 2-of-3 or configurable t-of-n
• Secure node communication using encrypted messaging and key exchange
• Support for ECDSA and Ed25519 signatures
• Designed for multi-chain compatibility and high-assurance signing

Have questions about your custody setup?

Share what you are building via the form and explore how Fystack’s MPC wallets, KYT integrations, and consolidation engine fit your architecture.

Not ready yet?
Join our Telegram for product updates and architecture discussions:
https://t.me/+9AtC0z8sS79iZjFl

FAQ