Governance is not decoration, how to create a power balance mechanism at the protocol layer?

In many projects, governance tokens have become mere 'voting props'; however, WalletConnect, in building governance rights, has a clear goal: not for political correctness, but to control the logic of resource allocation across the entire network.

The governance system of WCT focuses on three core decision-making areas:

① Relay network parameter adjustment

This includes the maximum duration of each session, push frequency, node reputation evaluation formula, etc. These directly determine the end-user experience and also dictate the operational model of the nodes, which are the true core parameters of the protocol.

② Fee model and distribution path

Is there a fee for Relay calls? How much is the fee? Which participants receive it? Will there be a 'whitelist for quality developers'? These will affect the incentive distribution for each role within the WalletConnect ecosystem.

③ Eco-fund distribution and governance proposals

The DAO governance structure of WCT allows the community to propose funding for wallet integration, DApp plugins, auditing services, etc., through voting. This enables WCT to have the potential for 'capital-guided growth' where one can vote and also allocate funds.

This type of governance model avoids governance redundancy and truly embeds 'power into resource coordination', making WCT the governance key to the Relay network.

Furthermore, this governance right based on traffic entry is far more valuable than that of ordinary DEX project governance tokens, as it essentially participates in the game structure of network-level traffic scheduling.