WalletConnect Monetization & WCT Tokenomics: Open Design Space

Ideas
1

Our ambition is to turn WalletConnect’s adoption into a sustainable network that brings value to its participants. Work on monetization continues with our ecosystem partners, and WCT remains central to how wethink about governance, incentives and utility as the network grows.

I want to invite the community to share ideas and suggestions on WalletConnect’s monetization, WCT’s role in fees and how we can bring value back to tokenholders.

You do not need a fully developed proposal to contribute. A short suggestion, a question or an example from another ecosystem is welcome. We would like to understand what you think is worth exploring and why.

This is an exploratory discussion to gather perspectives and inform ongoing research. It does not commit WalletConnect to a particular model, token mechanism, implementation timeline or adoption of any suggestion.

Whether you hold or stake WCT, build with WalletConnect or use the network, I would like to hear your perspective. What should we explore, and why?

13 Likes
2

Real Value Capture, Transparency, and Incentive Alignment for $WCT

I completely understand that WalletConnect provides essential infrastructure for all of Web3 and that the core team adopted the right strategy of prioritizing mass adoption before monetizing through fees. However, the transition toward value capture is complex because we have seen multiple models fail across the industry:

The Graph (GRT): Critical and essential infrastructure, but unable to capture value efficiently, caught in an inflationary spiral.

Optimism (OP): Generates enormous value as an ecosystem, but its token remains completely disconnected from that cash flow.

SKY (MakerDAO): Successfully connected protocol revenue streams directly to back the token’s value.

Venice (VVV): Implemented a transparent model with visible metrics and revenue for the community.

Chainlink (LINK): An emblematic case where token staking directly backs and protects network security.

Understanding these precedents, WalletConnect has no margin for improvisation. This leads to my questions for the Foundation and the core team:

Real Value Capture: What is the exact roadmap and economic model through which the mass usage of the WalletConnect network will translate into real value flow for the $WCT token?

Financial Transparency: Will there be a public, real-time dashboard tracking network metrics and revenue, similar to transparent protocols like Venice?

Inflationary Risk: Why does the whitepaper contemplate future token inflation if the top priority should be sustainability and token scarcity?

VC Alignment: What mechanisms or vesting schedules guarantee that Reown’s Venture Capitalists are aligned with long-term building rather than waiting for a convenient liquidity exit?

Security and Governance: Does WalletConnect’s governance include effective safeguards to prevent attacks where a malicious actor exploits a low token valuation to seize control or manipulate the protocol (as seen in vulnerable DAOs)?

All of this boils down to two fundamental pillars for the community: Real Value and Trust.

3 Likes
3

Pedro,

I’ve also seen the scale: hundreds of billions in volume already flow through WalletConnect. Adoption is not the missing piece — converting a small share of the value created by that flow is. That only works if apps, not end users, are the ones that pay.

I agree with the direction of monetizing high-volume apps and leaving users fee-free. The real question is whether large apps will accept that cost, how they price it against their own margins, and what they would demand in return (reliability, support, brand, or better distribution). If they will not pay, the model stays theoretical.

I’ve been here through the quiet years, backed proposals along the way, and I was the one who proposed forming the WCT Cabal. As a content creator I still support this vision and I trust the way you are framing it. The team has executed well. WCT should sit at the center of fees, incentives, and governance as usage becomes revenue.

Happy to help pressure-test app-side fee models and explain the better ones to holders. Explore that first — that is what tokenholders will actually feel.

3 Likes
4

One more small suggestion.

Do not frame this as making apps pay a fee. Still charge them. Just do not call it a tax, and do not let it feel like a tax.

They should still pay. The difference is in their head: this is not money they lost. It is money they put into WalletConnect in exchange for something that ties them to the network’s success — locked WCT, a long-term reward, or a similar claim. Same outflow. Different story.

I do not have a detailed plan. I only want you and the team to sit with the strategy: charge the apps, but make them believe they are investing, not being taxed.

I am just a content creator. I support your vision and the team’s. Before I retired to build my farm I was a Product Manager L5, led my own team, and learned a lot from the people above me. One trick I still like — on myself and on customers — is simple: get them to pay, and never let them feel they lost the money. Let them feel they invested. lol

— Thomas

bugs_bunny_meme_03_stick_by_wolvegetax_dgbbfdh-fullview
bugs_bunny_meme_03_stick_by_wolvegetax_dgbbfdh-fullview512×512 111 KB

1 Like
5

As a long-term WCT staker, I believe WalletConnect’s monetization should create a transparent connection between real network adoption and WCT utility.

One model worth exploring would be a balanced revenue-allocation framework. A portion of net protocol revenue could support operations, security, ecosystem development, and the DAO treasury, while another portion could be used for WCT value capture through community-governed buybacks or sustainable staker benefits.

The community could vote on whether repurchased WCT should be burned, retained by the treasury, or distributed through carefully designed staking incentives. This would help ensure that rewards increasingly come from genuine network usage rather than relying mainly on token emissions.

WCT could also provide practical utility through partner fee discounts, access to selected ecosystem benefits, governance participation, and enhanced benefits for long-term stakers. However, these benefits should not create unfair control for large holders.

I would also support:

  • A public dashboard showing protocol revenue and its allocation

  • Clear limits and criteria for buybacks

  • Regular community reviews of the mechanism

  • A limited pilot before permanent implementation

  • Continued investment in security, developers, and network reliability

The objective should not be short-term price support. It should be a sustainable system in which WalletConnect’s growth creates measurable utility and long-term alignment for users, builders, partners, and committed WCT stakers.

6

I think WCT should be a gas token as well when making use of walletconnect pay. It would definitely add a utility.

Also Pedro bringing value to participants and investors means higher prices, nobody would want to invest where they don’t make profits

I think it time we burnt some supply and at least return prices back to $0.3 to $0.5

1 Like
7

I’ve been thinking about this for a while.

For me, the most important thing is that if WalletConnect becomes more widely used by wallets, apps, payments and developers, there should eventually be a clear connection between that growth and WCT.

I don’t have a perfect model in mind, but I think it would be interesting to explore whether some of the revenue generated by WalletConnect could somehow benefit WCT holders or stakers.

Maybe WCT could also have more utility for people who actually use or contribute to the network, instead of being mainly seen as a governance token.

I’d personally like to see different models researched and compared before choosing anything. The main thing I’m interested in is:

If WalletConnect adoption keeps growing, how can that growth create real long-term value for the people holding and supporting WCT?

That’s the part I think is worth exploring.

8

My opinion: please let the token gain it value the continuation of fall is not encouraged at all. Or please we have stakers let use $WCT for gas fee to reduce the supply it will encourage the new people to join the network

9

I will share what I already laid out on discord.

** I’m going to give my honest input here, this is just my “opinion.” I’m not interested in WalletConnect pay as a driver for growth for $WCT, I haven’t received any rewards from its use thus far. I voted yes to give $WCT as rewards for using it, but it doesn’t benefit stakers or token holders so far so… I’m not sure I would vote yes again, I’d probably vote no to more rewards unless it benefits stakers in some way. Okay now my “opinion” on fees is this, implement a 0.01% fee on the app/wallet side and a 0.001% fee on the user side. Pull the bandaid off. No more charity to people who rely on WalletConnect. You may say well what if volume drops to 300B per year, well 0% fees on 400B right now is $0.00 in revenue. My 0.01% & 0.001% fees on even 300B if there is pushback and volume drops is STILL $33,000,000 in revenue which is more than $0.00 right now. Also, 20% of fees go directly to stakers/governance members and all fees need to be paid by users in $WCT. **

2 Likes
10

1. A public dashboard showing protocol revenue and its allocation.
2. Share a resonable ratio of protocol revenue.
3. distribute rewards or protocol revenue by stable coins, not $WCT.
4. burn or buyback plan
5. veTokenomics

2 Likes
11

Hey Pedro,

First, I think it would be useful for you to break down WalletConnect’s offerings today and if they make any revenue. Afaik, you have the network itself and WalletConnect Pay. Total network volume is high, but adding a take rate to that volume is tricky. Not too long ago you guys proposed a monetization method for this that I think could work, but you need to be extremely careful about the specific rates. Realistically, this type of product is not something where you can charge a % of volume. I’m thinking a baseline subscription fee of some sort could work, with subscription tiers that unlock additional usage. Walletconnect pay on the other hand is much more straight forward. Just charge a % of payments. And wrt to tokenomics, keep it on the simpler side. Buybacks, or staking rewards. Buybacks could replenish the treasury that pays out cash back. No ve-tokenomics.

1 Like
12

The prerequisite for creating value for WCT is that WalletConnect itself creates value. If WalletConnect cannot create value, then providing value for WCT is even further out of the question. Small-scale merchant payments strike me as hard work with very little profit – it would be far better to provide crypto payment services to internet companies, or to open up new business segments. If you have the capability, you could even create another Tether or Circle. Think about what new stories can be built on-chain. Hyperliquid and Polymarket have been the standout performances in crypto this past year. We should be achieving that kind of result – not talking about buying a cup of coffee, which, in my view, is extremely childish.

13

Do things that actually work.

Just like UNISWAP did wit UNI token.

make at least 10% from revenue to buy back and BURN.

Also don’t forget about WCT stakers that bleed the most until today. Make a decent allocation to them, 10% of the revenue is also good.

then you can manage the 80% by DAO or WCT Foundation.

BUY N BURN = 10%

DIVIDEND = 10%

By DAO = 80%

Or If you guys Generous enough you can make 15% 15% 70% it will be much better.

So the formula will be

BUY N BURN = 15%

DIVIDEND = 15%

By DAO = 70%

That is my honest suggestion :innocent:

2 Likes
14

Provide support for AI to connect with stable coins.

15

收入 → 中间钱包 → 定期转入销毁合约 → 公开市场回购WCT → 发送至黑洞地址（0x…dEaD）→ 链上可验证

16

“WCT as the Economic Security Layer for the Wallet Network"

  • Could WCT become an economic coordination and security layer for the WalletConnect Network?

WalletConnect already sits between wallets, applications and payments. As onchain activity becomes more automated—including AI agents and autonomous applications—new problems may emerge around reputation, permissions, incentives and economic accountability.

This could create new areas for WCT to potentially support:

• Staking and economic guarantees
• Reputation for wallets, agents or services
• Permission and access mechanisms
• Incentives based on verified network activity
• Accountability and dispute mechanisms
• Coordination of machine-to-machine payments

The important principle is:

WCT utility should come from solving real network problems, not from artificially creating token demand.

The long-term flywheel could look something like:

More wallets & apps → more network activity → more economic value → stronger WCT utility → stronger participation & security → more network adoption.

Today, WalletConnect connects:

Users → Wallets → Apps

Could the nxt phase connect:

Users + Wallets + Apps + Payments + Autonomous Agents?

If so, what economic primitives should WCT provide?

Rather than focusing only on how to monetize WalletConnect today, I think it is worth researching what role WCT should play in the economic infrastructure of the wallet network of tomorrow.

  • Fees and buybacks can be part of the toolbox—but perhaps the bigger opportunity is designing the economic infrastructure for the wallet economy of the future.

Would love to hear how the community would design this.

17

代币和股票一样，不用那么麻烦参考英伟达、苹果，捕捉未来价值，有预期就有热度有热度就有市场