I am not sure why you are comparing a centralised chip with a decentralised and non-custodial secure chip.
You have no clue what you are talking about do you?
What the heck is decentralised non-custodial secure chip?
That exist only in your dreams
Hahaha, no worries. I think we should have a misunderstanding here. However, I just want to say that even when banks access data from the Secure Chip, we don't have a problem because we already trust them with our funds. So we have to trust them anyway. But for Bitcoin or crypto wallets, we can't trust them the same way if wallet manufacturers could read data from the secure chip. Will you believe any hardware wallet manufacturer if you know that they could access data from a secure chip? I don't think so.
Both are different; credit card chips won't be open source because they are centralized. When you get a credit card, you already trust them. But for a hardware wallet, this isn't a fact.
Open Source doesn't mean that something is centralized or decentralized.
You are mixing apples and cucumbers, so you better stop here my friend... this is getting really hilarious...
Bro, we aren't fighting here or making arguments. I am just trying to learn proper knowledge about secure chip safety. I may have less knowledge about secure chips, but we can learn from the discussion. As I said above, it doesn't matter whether the bank chip or the software is open or closed source. They are centralised, which means we trust them when we are using their service. Bitcoin is decentralised; the hardware wallet should be fully non-custodial here, so we don't need to trust any third party. When the firmware is open source, then we can (developers) read it, and we don't need to trust them.
Anyway, I am convinced of Trezor Safe 3 and have already placed an order. I hope I will receive it soon.
Still, I will keep this thread open for discussion.