Tangem has answered one of the more persistent Kaspa wallet questions: dynamic address support is on its radar, but the company says Kaspa needs a separate implementation path rather than a straight copy of its Bitcoin-style UTXO support. (source)
The issue matters because dynamic addresses are not just a cosmetic wallet feature. For users who receive repeated payments, especially miners and active holders, address rotation improves wallet hygiene and makes the experience feel closer to what people expect from modern non-custodial wallets.
Tangem wrote that it understands why the Kaspa community wants the feature, but said kaspa:native is technically different from Bitcoin-like UTXO networks such as BTC, LTC and DOGE. According to Tangem, that means Kaspa requires a separate implementation approach. (source)
That explanation immediately became part of the wider community discussion. One reply pointed Tangem toward the creator of Kaspium, noting that Kaspium has supported dynamic addresses for years and could be useful context for implementation work. (source)
There was also pushback on the technical framing. coderofstuff asked what part is different from Bitcoin-like UTXO networks, arguing that address generation itself is still BIP32 / BIP44 HD wallet logic and that network architecture should not affect address generation in isolation. (source)
That is the useful part of the story. Tangem has now acknowledged the request in public, but the exact blocker is not fully settled from the outside. It may involve address generation, signing, wallet scanning, transaction handling, or product integration rather than one single protocol difference.
For Kaspa users, the practical signal is simple: dynamic address support is a visible wallet UX gap, Tangem is aware of it, and community developers are already pushing for a more precise technical discussion.
The right next step is not another pile-on. It is clear implementation detail: what Tangem needs, whether existing Kaspa wallet code can help, and which part of the wallet stack actually blocks dynamic address support.
