I'm not quite sure your comparison chart is fair to paper wallets.
With split keys (Armory) or encrypted keys (BIP38) they should be at least a "possible" in a couple more categories.
I'd also say "Phishing protection" is "n/a" for paper wallets since you have "no" for transaction signing.
And why is BIP32 not listed under paper backup? You have the Trezor listed as "yes" for BIP32 and "yes" for disaster recovery saying it uses a paper wallet, so it seems like BIP32 should be "possible" for paper wallet.
And for usability, I think it should say "Fast use for Internet transactions." I can hand you a paper wallet pretty quickly if we are next to each other
That said, I'm super excited for my Trezor!
With split keys (Armory) or encrypted keys (BIP38) they should be at least a "possible" in a couple more categories.
I'd also say "Phishing protection" is "n/a" for paper wallets since you have "no" for transaction signing.
And why is BIP32 not listed under paper backup? You have the Trezor listed as "yes" for BIP32 and "yes" for disaster recovery saying it uses a paper wallet, so it seems like BIP32 should be "possible" for paper wallet.
And for usability, I think it should say "Fast use for Internet transactions." I can hand you a paper wallet pretty quickly if we are next to each other
That said, I'm super excited for my Trezor!