Thx @n0nce for a competent review and picking on important issues. That's transparancy I enjoy.

The first version of the wallet has properties that are almost a no-go for me. Inferior power supply design. (While I like the ability to use AAA or better AA size batteries, the power circuit should've indeed been better designed to get more high enough voltage out of more normal batteries of rechargeable ones.)
But I'm not going to address any more on the first device version.

Regarding "batch 2":
I kinda like the design more than the first one, to be honest. But design has less priority for me. It has to be easy to use for the tasks that it's made for.

I have no idea how long those Li-ion rechargeable batteries will be available and how long one lasts, even if it is a very common type. For a device intended to be kept for years such rechargeables are kind of "planned" obsolescense, a point of failure which I'm not happy with. The manifacturer could mitigate this if it were possible to use the device connected to a cabled power source like the charger but without necessity of a rechargeable battery inside the wallet. Is this possible? This way you could still use the device if the battery isn't available anymore or you happen to have none which is still OK.

There is one thing that I don't understand and what is for me nearly a no-go for this nice hardware wallet: what is the purpose of a non-resettable device PIN once it has been defined for the first time? Does this also apply for the batch 2 variant? What is the security idea behind such a device design decission? I don't get it.
From a hardware wallet I expect it to be fully factory resettable, including any user defined device PIN to unlock it.