In various topics - especially those centered around requests for paranoid and sometimes silly wallet security features - I said the simple approach of having 2 wallets - one for savings, and one for daily use - is a no brainer that doesn’t require any development (a huge advantage in my opinion).
The first wallet would be used rarely and possibly in a very secure environment, while the second would receive funds from the first (say, once a month you login to the first and send $20 in
SAFE to the second) and the second could have a simple 4 digit ping (that could maybe even be stored to avoid being prompted to enter it).
A similar service (with a fiat twist) exists for bitcoin wallets:
If a fiat institution were to start trading
SAFE, it could offer the same reload service for the second, less secure SAFE wallet. But even a crypto-exchange could provide this service (reload using BTC), but it wouldn’t be so seamless (watch SAFE balance in Wallet #2, send notification/email to buy SAFE from Wallet #1, send purchased SAFE straight to Wallet #2).
Actual users will want less security and more convenience, not the opposite (what hardcore forum users have been calling for). If a proposal to implement this was put on proper vote (meaning, not here, but one day among real users of SAFE), it would beat hands down requests to make SAFE wallets more secure and less convenient to use.