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?

2 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.

2 Likes
4

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

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