WCT has empowered the WalletConnect Network to distribute rewards, incentivize staking, and establish governance, giving the community a direct role in shaping the roadmap.
Yet revenue generation is critical to ensure the long-term sustainability and growth of WalletConnect.
We’re excited to share the first version of the Monetization paper, which outlines how fees will introduce a revenue stream for the Network and secure sustainable token economics for the future of WalletConnect.
I am a long-time supporter of your technology and a long-term holder of the WCT token. I am writing to express my full support for the announced “Monetization Paper.”
As someone who plans to support the network for the long run, I see this step as not just desirable, but absolutely essential for the future viability, stability, and growth of the protocol.
I would like to highlight a few points that I find particularly well-thought-out, and also raise a few questions for further discussion.
Positive Aspects:
The Shift to Sustainability: This is the most critical point. This model transforms WalletConnect from an infrastructure “public good,” funded by emissions, into a self-sustaining business. This is the only path to true decentralization and longevity.
The B2B (Paymasters) Model: The decision to charge dApps and wallets, rather than end-users, is absolutely wise. It protects WalletConnect’s most valuable asset: its seamless User Experience (UX). Users should not face friction with every connection.
“Real Yield” (Payment in USDC): Using USDC for fee collection is a fundamentally strong decision. It creates a stable, non-volatile revenue stream for the treasury that is independent of market cycles. This allows the DAO to plan budgets and accrue real value.
Strengthening the Role of the DAO and WCT: Directing revenue to the Network Treasury directly provides the WCT token with powerful economic utility. The value of WCT is no longer just the right to vote, but the right to govern a productive, revenue-generating treasury.
Questions and Points for Consideration (A Look Ahead):
As a long-term holder, I am invested in seeing this model perfectly balanced. In this regard, I would like to raise a few topics for community discussion:
Revenue Transparency: Is there a plan to create a public dashboard (e.g., via Dune Analytics or a native service) where the community can track the volume of network messages and the amount of USDC collected in the treasury in real-time? Transparency is the key to trust.
Pricing Balance: How will the DAO approach setting the price per message? This is a delicate balance. The price must be high enough to generate meaningful revenue, but not so high as to deter small developers or incentivize the search for free (but lower-quality) alternatives.
Future Value Accrual Mechanisms: The paper rightly focuses on filling the treasury. What is the next step? As a long-term holder, I would like to start the discussion in the DAO about how this treasury will be used. For example:
Will there be proposals for WCT buybacks from the market?
Is a mechanism for direct revenue distribution (in USDC) to WCT stakers being considered?
What portion will be reinvested into ecosystem grants for further growth?
Conclusion
I want to thank the team again for this thoughtful approach. This paper signals the project’s maturity.
I believe WalletConnect is critical infrastructure for all of Web3. Implementing a sustainable business model ensures that this infrastructure will evolve, remain secure, and stay decentralized for decades to come.
I look forward to participating in the DAO discussions regarding the implementation of this model.
In general, I totally agree with this proposal, there is only one point I want to add here:
Targeted Waivers for Impact Entities: Waive fees entirely for verified schools, academies, and NGOs, but tie it to transaction volume that drives social good (e.g., educational payments, charitable transfers). No blanket exemptions—require simple verification (like nonprofit status) to keep it permissionless yet accountable. This encourages these entities to integrate WCT deeply, creating network effects that pull in more users.
Reimbursement Mechanism: Make It Effortless: Allow these groups to claim reimbursements for any incidental costs (e.g., minimal gas or setup fees) directly from a dedicated community fund, funded by excess from WCT revenue vault But Don’t overcomplicate with endless paperwork.
Have to AI chatbot to refine my words, unfortunately English is not my native language.
It’s very nice to see my favorite project taking things to the next level. Wallet connect is the perfect definition of projects that is not going to stop building anytime soon. Kudos on building the future
The proposal by WalletConnect to monetize its network represents a considered step toward a more sustainable model. By applying fees to applications rather than to users, the user experience remains free while resources are generated to strengthen the ecosystem. It is positive that the revenues will be used to improve the network and to reward stakers and other participants, allowing the system to sustain itself from its own foundation.
However, there are aspects that should be refined. First, mechanisms should be incorporated to limit excessive speculation around the WCT token so that its value effectively reflects its utility within the ecosystem. Likewise, it would be advisable to review the governance system to prevent decision-making power from becoming concentrated in the hands of a few and to ensure fair and transparent processes for all participants.
Additionally, it is advisable to establish a clear policy for the management of collected tokens that contemplates, among other measures, the periodic burning of a percentage of the tokens collected —with the aim of reducing circulating supply and contributing to the stability of WCT’s value—; the percentage and frequency should be set by governance and communicated publicly. It would also be very useful to set a clear date for the start of fee collection and to publish monthly reports indicating how much was collected, how many tokens were burned, and how the funds were distributed; this would increase transparency and strengthen community trust.
Overall, the decision to monetize the network without affecting users is very positive, especially if the collected funds are reinvested in improving the infrastructure and in maintaining a sustainable balance between growth, participation, and rewards, supported by governance and transparency measures that mitigate speculation and protect the community.
