Description:
Please enable multisign option in MetaMask where user needs to authorise any transactions from multiple addresses originated from different seed phrases. This may make the process slow for transations, but enables added security
Purpose:
This feature helps sers to regain control on hacked wallets and ensures users funds are protected rom hackers.
Extension/Mobile/Both:
Images/Attachments:
Hi and thank you for sharing this feature request, currently MetaMask doesn’t directly support multisignature (multisig) functionality within its interface, meaning you can’t set up a requirement for transactions to be authorized by multiple addresses originating from different seed phrases directly through MetaMask. This is because MetaMask operates as a single-signature wallet, designed for simplicity and ease of use for individual users.
However, you can still achieve multisig functionality by interacting with a multisig wallet or safe, an example could be Gnosis Safe, through MetaMask. Gnosis Safe, for example, allows you to create a multisig wallet where transactions require approval from multiple parties before they can be executed. You can use MetaMask to interact with your Gnosis Safe by connecting MetaMask to the Safe’s web interface. This way, MetaMask acts as a bridge, allowing you to sign transactions and interact with the blockchain, while Gnosis Safe manages the multisig aspect, ensuring added security by requiring multiple approvals.
This setup combines the user-friendly experience of MetaMask with the enhanced security of a multisig wallet, providing a solution for users seeking the added protection of multisig without sacrificing the convenience of using MetaMask. While it may introduce some additional steps into your transaction process, this approach allows you to leverage the benefits of multisig security for sensitive operations or high-value assets.
Always be careful who and what you interact with online and always do your own research before doing anything. 
Does this also work for compromised wallets if you have a sweeper bot? If any transaction needs to be confirmed then the sweeper bot doesn’t have the possibility to tranfer any token outside the wallet right?
Multiple confirmations would be required so the sweeper bot wouldn’t be able to transfer the tokens. A hardware wallet would also prevent a sweeper bot from confirming a transaction.
So multiple confirmations for transactions would bypass the sweeper bot right? Why isn’t there already such feature on MetaMask? I was told by you in another topic that 2FA for confirming transaction wouldn’t work, so what kind of confirmation would potentially work for transactions so the sweeper bot cannot stel them from your wallet?
Thanks!
Multiple signature is different than 2fa, it is where multiple private keys are required to confirm a transaction. Here’s some more info on it
Additionally, a hardware wallet where a physical device is needed to confirm a transaction would prevent a sweeper bot. See here on our Knowledge Base:
As mentioned by @Coffee7643 above, MetaMask currently doesn’t have multisig functionality, but you can use other dapps like Safe. MetaMask is also compatible with multiple hardware wallets.
I understand, thanks! Would that mean that if MetaMask adds multisig that it would be harder for a sweeper bot to steal your tokens if you already have a sweeper bot in you wallet?
If add multisig within MetaMask without a third extansion/party, that means that when you sent tokens ro your hacked wallet, the bot will not be able to withdraw the tokens without multisig confirmation. Is that correct?
Correct, it would need multisig confirmation
In that case, MetaMask should definitely add this feature asap! This will help many people with wallets where a sweeper bot is present. They will be able to safely send tokens to their hacked wallet, the sweeper can’t steal anything and the user can then use multisig to send these tokens to a secure wallet and abandoned their hacked wallet for good.
Is this something planned to be added somewhere in the near future?