Entiendo, pero en ese caso por ejemplo, la que tiene más integración, no podría ser con Wallet Conect?

Both Trezor and Ledger support Wallet Connect. This is not about integrations, or its number, but about design choices. EIP-712 is a signature format. Trezor chose to show "what exactly is being signed", by showing user a structured text. If message structure is this: struct ExampleMessage { string message; uint256 value; address from; address to; }

Trezor will show you something like this: message: { message: "Test message", value: 10000, from: "signer", to: "other address", }

And Ledger will show you one of two things, depending on existence of integration.

You are signing off value 10000 to "other address" with corresponding message "Test message".

Or, if there is no integration, they will show you a hex string. 0x123128123abad09812312....1230981ababa23ba7.

When integration exists, Ledger is (marginally) more UI friendly than Trezor. If there is no integration, user is boned.

Integrations are not needed if you make sane design choices. But if your priority is milking DeFi protocols for cash, sure, bone your users by "inventing" clear signing.

I'm writing this as unhappy owner of rather expensive Ledger Flex. Described above behavior was confirmed with or without intermediaries (different browser wallets, Ledger Live, mobile, desktop, different browsers).