Dynamic was acquired by Fireblocks in 2025, bringing it under the umbrella of the leading enterprise digital asset infrastructure provider. While this acquisition adds enterprise security credibility, it raises questions about Dynamic's future direction—will it continue serving startups and developers, or shift toward Fireblocks' traditional enterprise customer base?
Why Developers Look for Dynamic Alternatives
Since the Fireblocks acquisition, developers have been evaluating Dynamic alternatives for several reasons:
- Enterprise pivot concerns: Fireblocks serves large enterprises; Dynamic may de-prioritize startup/developer needs
- Open-source sovereignty: Dynamic's infrastructure is proprietary with no self-hosting option
- Native smart account gaps: Dynamic relies on third-party integrations for advanced smart account features
- Signing performance: Dynamic's 2850ms signing latency is significantly slower than alternatives
- Strategic uncertainty: Acquisition changes product roadmap and pricing dynamics
What to Look for in a Dynamic Alternative
| Criteria | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Independence | Acquired companies may change direction; independent vendors have aligned incentives |
| Smart Account Support | Native ERC-4337/7702 vs third-party integrations affects feature depth and reliability |
| Signing Performance | Sub-100ms signing is critical for real-time UX; Dynamic's 2850ms is very slow |
| Open Source | Self-hostable infrastructure provides audit capability and escape hatch |
| Multi-chain | EVM-only vs multi-chain (Solana, Cosmos) support for your use case |
What are the Best Dynamic Alternatives?
The best Dynamic alternatives in 2026 are Openfort, Turnkey, and Thirdweb.
- Openfort is the top choice for developers who need native smart account features, open-source infrastructure, and sub-100ms signing without vendor lock-in
- Turnkey excels at low-level programmable signing with the fastest performance (50-100ms)
- Thirdweb offers an all-in-one platform if you want bundled contract and wallet tools
Note: Several competitors have also been acquired—Privy is now part of Stripe, Web3Auth is part of MetaMask, and Sequence is part of Polygon Labs.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us 👋) is an open-source wallet infrastructure solution that provides powerful wallet capabilities to abstract crypto complexity for both users and developers. Our platform allows developers to plug and play any signer—including Opensigner for embedded wallets—and contract they prefer, simplifying everything from cross-app ecosystems and AI agents to fintech and DeFi.
Beyond embedded wallets, Openfort provides TEE backend wallets for server-side key storage. These backend wallets run inside Trusted Execution Environments and are purpose-built for scenarios like permission-controlled signing and automatic transactions—ideal for AI agents, automated treasury management, and backend-triggered workflows where no end-user is present.
Openfort also includes blockchain infrastructure that many competitors leave out entirely. Built-in paymasters enable gasless transactions out of the box, so your users never need to hold native tokens to interact with your application. With Dynamic, you'd need to source and integrate a separate paymaster provider.
Why Choose Openfort Over Dynamic
Developers concerned about Fireblocks' enterprise pivot find Openfort a natural fit because it remains independent and developer-focused. Where Dynamic's 2850ms signing latency creates noticeable friction in real-time applications, Openfort delivers 200ms median signing—making it viable for gaming, trading, and other latency-sensitive use cases. Openfort also offers native smart accounts with built-in session keys, gas sponsorship through its paymaster infrastructure, and policy engines, while Dynamic relies on third-party integrations for these capabilities. And with Opensigner being fully open-source and self-hostable, you retain complete sovereignty over your infrastructure.
Comparison Table: Openfort vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Openfort | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Opensigner (MIT) | ❌ Proprietary |
| Signing Speed | 200ms median | 2850ms median |
| Smart Wallets | ✅ Native (4337, 7702) | ⚠️ Third-party |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ Opensigner | ✅ Proprietary |
| Backend Wallets | ✅ TEE Backend Wallets | ❌ |
| Gasless Transactions | ✅ Native Paymasters | ⚠️ Basic |
| UI Approach | Headless + Components | Polished Widget |
| Authentication | Any OIDC Provider | Built-in / Socials |
| Pricing | Usage-based (per operation) | $249/mo (5k MAU) |
| Vendor Lock-in | ❌ None (Exportable) | ⚠️ High (Fireblocks) |
| Parent Company | Independent | Fireblocks |
| Server Wallet | ✅ Backend Wallet | ✅ Server Wallet |
| Permission Model | On-chain (session keys) | Off-chain (basic) |
Scaling Considerations
Openfort uses usage-based pricing where an operation is defined as creating a wallet or sending a transaction—you only pay for what you actually use. This model scales transparently: a team with thousands of wallets but low transaction volume pays far less than they would under Dynamic's flat MAU tiers. Dynamic starts at $249/month for 5,000 MAUs, and post-acquisition pricing may shift further toward enterprise models.
On the performance side, Openfort's 200ms median signing is 22x faster than Dynamic's 2850ms. For gaming, trading, and real-time applications, this difference is the gap between a responsive experience and a frustrating one.
Why developers choose Openfort
Developers choose Openfort when they need a complete wallet stack that goes beyond key management. The combination of native smart account features (gas sponsorship via paymasters, transaction batching, session key automation), open-source sovereignty through Opensigner, and fair usage-based pricing makes it the strongest independent alternative for teams that want to avoid the uncertainty of enterprise acquisition dynamics. With both embedded wallets and TEE backend wallets available, Openfort covers client-side and server-side wallet needs in a single platform.
2. Turnkey
Turnkey offers secure, programmable key management built by the team that created Coinbase Custody. Turnkey provides the fastest TEE-based signing infrastructure available.
Why Choose Turnkey Over Dynamic
- If you need the fastest possible signing (50-100ms vs Dynamic's 2850ms)
- If you want to build your own wallet experience with complete control
- If you're building AI agents with policy-controlled autonomous signing
- If you prefer usage-based pricing (per signature)
Comparison Table: Turnkey vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Turnkey | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Level | Infrastructure API | Product SDK |
| Signing Speed | 50-100ms | 2850ms |
| Flexibility | ✅ Build anything | ⚠️ Widget constraints |
| Verifiable | ✅ Cryptographic proof | ❌ |
| Pricing | $0.10/signature | MAU-based |
| UI Components | ❌ Build your own | ✅ Pre-built widget |
| Server Wallet | ✅ Server Signing | ✅ Server Wallet |
| Permission Model | Off-chain (strong) | Off-chain (basic) |
Recent Updates (2026)
- Policy-controlled signing for AI agents
- Verifiable infrastructure with cryptographic proofs
- Clients include Spectral Labs, Legend Labs
Why developers choose Turnkey
Teams choose Turnkey when they want complete control over the wallet experience and are willing to invest the engineering effort to build it. Turnkey gives you the fastest possible signing primitives, and its policy engine is well-suited for AI agent use cases where transactions need programmatic approval rules. The trade-off is that you're responsible for everything above the key layer—smart accounts, gas sponsorship, transaction construction, and UI—which typically means a longer time to market compared to more complete solutions.
3. Privy (Now Part of Stripe)
Privy was acquired by Stripe in June 2025. Privy focuses on high-conversion onboarding flows and now integrates with Stripe's Bridge stablecoin platform.
Post-Acquisition Considerations
- Stripe ecosystem: Deep integration with payments and stablecoins
- Potential lock-in: Building on Privy now means building on Stripe's ecosystem
- Consumer focus: Still optimized for consumer app onboarding
Comparison Table: Privy vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Privy | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Signing Speed | 175ms | 2850ms |
| Onboarding | Best-in-class | Strong |
| Pricing | $299/mo (2.5k MAU) | $249/mo (5k MAU) |
| Parent Company | Stripe | Fireblocks |
| Multi-chain | EVM, Solana, BTC | EVM, Solana, Cosmos |
| Stablecoin Integration | ✅ Bridge | ❌ |
| Server Wallet | ✅ Server Wallet | ✅ Server Wallet |
| Permission Model | Off-chain (strong) | Off-chain (basic) |
Why developers choose Privy
Teams choose Privy for its superior conversion rates on user onboarding and its deep integration with the Stripe payment ecosystem. Since the acquisition, Privy has leaned into stablecoin and fiat payment flows through Stripe's Bridge platform, making it a natural fit for consumer fintech applications. The trade-off is ecosystem lock-in—building on Privy now means building on Stripe's terms, and Privy does not include blockchain infrastructure like paymasters for gasless transactions.
4. Thirdweb
Thirdweb offers a full stack of web3 tools including embedded wallets, smart accounts, contract deployment, and payments.
Why Choose Thirdweb Over Dynamic
- If you want an all-in-one platform (contracts, wallets, indexing, payments)
- If you prefer a generous free tier
- If you want ecosystem wallets for multi-app identity
Comparison Table: Thirdweb vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Thirdweb | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Full Stack Platform | Wallet Focus |
| Smart Accounts | ✅ Native | ⚠️ Third-party |
| Contract Tools | ✅ Extensive | ❌ |
| 700+ Chains | ✅ | ✅ |
| Pricing | Generous free tier | $249/mo |
| Independence | ✅ Independent | ❌ Fireblocks |
Why developers choose Thirdweb
Developers choose Thirdweb when they want a single platform that covers the full web3 development lifecycle—contract deployment, embedded wallets, smart accounts, indexing, and payments all under one roof. This bundled approach reduces vendor management overhead and provides a generous free tier for teams getting started. The trade-off is that Thirdweb's breadth can come at the expense of depth in specific areas, and it does not offer the same level of open-source self-hosting that Openfort provides.
5. Web3Auth (Now Part of MetaMask)
Web3Auth was acquired by MetaMask/Consensys. Web3Auth provides MPC-based authentication infrastructure.
Post-Acquisition Considerations
- MetaMask integration: Expect deeper MetaMask ecosystem integration
- MPC latency: Slower signing (~500ms+) due to MPC ceremony
- Lowest cost: Still the cheapest option at $69/month
Comparison Table: Web3Auth vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Web3Auth | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Auth & Keys | Full Wallet UI |
| Signing Speed | ~500ms (MPC) | 2850ms |
| Pricing | $69/mo (3k MAU) | $249/mo (5k MAU) |
| Parent Company | MetaMask/Consensys | Fireblocks |
| UI | Build your own | Pre-built Widget |
Why developers choose Web3Auth
Teams choose Web3Auth when budget is a primary concern and social login is the main requirement. At $69/month for 3,000 MAUs, it remains the most affordable option in the space. Its MPC-based architecture offers a different security model than TEE-based alternatives, which appeals to teams that prefer distributed key management. However, Web3Auth's MPC ceremony introduces additional signing latency (~500ms+), and like Dynamic, it does not include blockchain infrastructure such as paymasters for gasless transactions—you'd need to build or buy that separately.
6. Sequence (Now Part of Polygon Labs)
Sequence was acquired by Polygon Labs for $125M in January 2026. Sequence specializes in gaming wallet infrastructure.
Post-Acquisition Considerations
- Polygon focus: Part of Polygon's "Open Money Stack" for stablecoin payments
- Gaming strength: Only verified EVM wallet on Unity Asset Store
- Chain priority: May prioritize Polygon ecosystem
Comparison Table: Sequence vs. Dynamic
| Feature | Sequence | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Gaming | General Purpose |
| Game SDKs | ✅ Unity, Unreal | ❌ |
| Marketplaces | ✅ Built-in | ❌ |
| Parent Company | Polygon Labs | Fireblocks |
Why developers choose Sequence
Game studios choose Sequence because it offers the most mature gaming wallet infrastructure available, including native Unity and Unreal Engine SDKs, built-in NFT marketplace tooling, and purpose-built indexing for in-game assets. As part of Polygon Labs, Sequence benefits from deep Polygon ecosystem integration, though this may mean reduced priority for non-Polygon chains over time.
Recommendation by Use Case
| Use Case | Recommended Alternative |
|---|---|
| Need open-source sovereignty | Openfort |
| Real-time apps (gaming, trading) | Openfort or Turnkey |
| All-in-one platform | Thirdweb |
| AI agents / automation | Turnkey or Openfort |
| Gaming with Unity/Unreal | Sequence |
| Lowest cost social login | Web3Auth |
| Stripe payment integration | Privy |
| Enterprise security priority | Stay with Dynamic |
Conclusion
Dynamic remains a solid choice if you prioritize polished UI widgets and enterprise security backing from Fireblocks. Its strengths in wallet connection flows and multi-chain support are real.
However, the embedded wallet market has consolidated significantly, and for teams that value independence and long-term flexibility, the choice of infrastructure provider matters more than ever. If you need faster signing performance (200ms vs 2850ms), open-source sovereignty, native smart account features including gasless transactions via built-in paymasters, or want to avoid the uncertainty of enterprise acquisition dynamics, Openfort provides the complete wallet-as-a-service infrastructure you need—from embedded wallets to backend wallet automations, with fair, usage-based pricing where you only pay per operation.
Get started with Openfort — free tier available, no credit card required.