Which WCT Staking Model Serves the Community Best?

General
1

Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen two major threads shaping the future of WCT staking:

Idea: Enable WCT Staking for Premium Features → Tier-based access unlocking faster relays, advanced APIs, dashboards, and SDK betas.

Proposal (P3): WCT Staking Redesign → A restructured mechanism (still under community debate)

Both approaches aim to increase token utility and strengthen governance, but they raise important questions:

1. Fairness vs. Utility:

Tiered staking feels rewarding to early and large stakers.

But does it risk creating a “pay-to-play” system that limits access for smaller contributors?

2. Governance Participation:

Should staking primarily unlock governance rights (voting, proposals, community ownership)?

Or should it also serve as a utility unlock (premium protocol features, dev tools, etc.)?

3. Long-Term Sustainability:

Which model better aligns WCT with mass adoption?

Could a hybrid approach (governance rights + utility tiers) balance decentralization and ecosystem growth?

:backhand_index_pointing_right: I’d love to hear the community’s thoughts:

Should staking be purely governance-driven?

Or should it double as an access pass to premium features?

How do we ensure fairness for

both small holders and large stakeholders?

14 Likes
2

I’m personally in favour of a degree of integration with the current WalletConnect system, which already finds itself used in the vast majority of web3. I don’t have any particular ideas on how to integrate the token to the ecosystem without having drawbacks regarding adoption, however.

8 Likes
4

what do you mean? P3 has been passed by voting :smiling_face:

4 Likes
5

Yes governance and utility tier …is the key.

People who stake from day 1 and the voters need to be rewards before new staking deploy.

May be attracted more staker for season 2

3 Likes
6

The Ethereum staking model prioritizes governance and security, while projects like Cosmos or Polkadot blend governance with utility (e.g., IBC access for stakers). For WCT, a hybrid model with safeguards (e.g., quadratic voting, staking pools) might strike the best balance. However, the community must weigh the trade-offs between decentralization and practical incentives for growth.

What do you think? Would a hybrid model with quadratic voting address fairness concerns while enabling utility tiers?

2 Likes
7

we’re cooking something :eyes:

3 Likes
8

check wct X post, they give 2.5M $WCT for boost stakers and voters

3 Likes
9

I think both models have merit, but the key is balance.

  • On fairness: A purely tiered system risks centralizing access in the hands of large stakers, which could discourage smaller contributors. On the other hand, we do need meaningful incentives for those committing more to the network. A hybrid model (where baseline governance rights are accessible to everyone, but additional staking can unlock advanced features) feels like the most inclusive way forward.

  • On governance vs. utility: Staking should first and foremost secure governance participation. That keeps WCT true to its role as a community-driven token. But giving utility value—such as premium tools or beta access—on top can strengthen adoption and keep developers/users engaged.

  • On long-term sustainability: If staking is too exclusive, adoption may stall. If it’s too flat, governance could weaken. A layered approach—guaranteeing all holders governance rights, while offering optional premium perks to higher stakers—seems like the healthiest path for long-term growth.

So my preference: staking shouldn’t be just governance or just utility. It should be designed as a community-first model with both—ensuring fairness for small holders while still rewarding larger commitments.

3 Likes
10

Считаю стейки нг Wct должен быть гибридной моделью с полезной направленностью как для крупных так и для мелких игроков в зависимости от доли вклада каждого участника.

3 Likes
11

Ain’t gonna lie, you are correct

3 Likes
12

WCT staking is clearly leveling up and the momentum feels strong.
If the redesign lands right we get real utility plus real governance power.
This is shaping into a win for both builders and holders.

3 Likes