In the transaction logic of Web3, 'signature' is the core link of asset transfer—users sign a transfer, mint an NFT, or participate in a DeFi staking, which essentially confirms transaction information through private key encryption. However, for a long time, 'signature' and 'connection' have been viewed separately: connection is responsible for establishing the interaction channel between the wallet and the DApp, while signature is an independent operation within the wallet. This separation has led to a series of industry pain points: users cannot confirm whether the transaction requested by the DApp for signature has been tampered with, repeated identity verification is required for cross-chain signatures, and signature records cannot be synchronized and traced across multiple devices.
The deep value of WalletConnect lies precisely in breaking this separation—it is not merely a 'communication protocol,' but through the deep integration of the 'connection layer' and 'signature layer,' it constructs a 'value transmission layer' that spans the entire process of 'transaction initiation - information encryption - signature confirmation - record tracing.' This transmission layer not only addresses the efficiency issue of 'connection' but fundamentally reshapes the 'trust link' in Web3 transactions, making each signature a 'verifiable, traceable, and trustworthy' value confirmation action.
I. 'Information fidelity' before signing: Using encrypted sessions to eliminate transaction hijacking and tampering.
In the early days of Web3, there were significant vulnerabilities in the transaction information transmission between DApps and wallets: transaction requests initiated by the DApp (such as transfer amount, recipient address) were transmitted in plaintext, allowing hackers to intercept network data packets and tamper with the information—for example, a user intended to transfer 1 ETH to address A but was tampered to transfer 10 ETH to a hacker's address, while the wallet still displayed the tampered false information, leading the user to mistakenly sign the transaction. Such 'transaction hijacking' incidents frequently occurred during the rapid development period of Web3 from 2019 to 2021, with over 500 related asset loss cases reported in 2020 alone.
The core solution of WalletConnect is to bind 'connection sessions' with 'transaction information transmission,' ensuring 'information fidelity' before signing through end-to-end encryption. The specific logic can be broken down into three steps:
1. Unique generation of session keys: When a DApp initiates a connection request, WalletConnect generates a pair of temporary 'session public keys' and 'session private keys', where the public key is transmitted to the wallet via a QR code or deep link, and the private key is stored locally by the DApp. Only through this pair of keys can both parties establish an encrypted channel, preventing third-party interception.
2. Secondary encryption of transaction information: After the DApp generates a transaction request (such as a transfer, NFT minting), it first encrypts the transaction hash (which includes core information such as amount, address, chain ID, etc.) with the session private key and then transmits it to the wallet through the channel. Upon receipt, the wallet must decrypt it with the session public key to obtain the complete transaction information—this means that even if the channel is monitored by a hacker, the transaction content cannot be deciphered, let alone tampered with.
3. Information consistency verification: After the wallet decrypts the transaction information, it automatically extracts key fields such as 'chain ID' and 'contract address' from the transaction hash and cross-verifies them with the information displayed by the DApp. For example, if the DApp shows that the transaction is on the Ethereum mainnet (chain ID: 1), but the wallet discovers that the chain ID is a testnet (chain ID: 5) after decryption, it will immediately prompt the user with 'information inconsistency' and prevent the signature operation.
This design of 'session encryption + secondary verification' fundamentally eliminates the possibility of 'transaction hijacking.' As of 2024, among the more than 300 million connections supported by WalletConnect, there has been no occurrence of a signature incident caused by 'transaction information tampering'—this record reflects the protocol's strict guarantee of 'trust before signing': before users click 'confirm signature,' they can ensure that the transaction information displayed by the wallet is completely consistent with the request initiated by the DApp, without worrying about the risk of tampering in the middle.
II. Cross-chain signature 'identity unification': Breaking down 'on-chain identity islands' with multi-chain adaptation
With the development of multi-chain ecosystems, users' 'on-chain identities' have gradually fragmented: using wallet A on Ethereum, wallet B on Solana, and wallet C on Avalanche—each wallet corresponds to different private keys and addresses, and cross-chain operations require repeated logins and authorizations, even leading to asset transfer errors due to address mismatches. This 'identity island' problem essentially arises from the incompatibility of different public chain signature rules and account systems, and early connection tools could not achieve 'cross-chain identity unification.'
The breakthrough of WalletConnect lies in its protocol layer's deep adaptation to 'multi-chain signature rules,' allowing users to achieve 'full-chain identity unification' with a single wallet. Its core logic is the 'abstract signature interface'—the protocol encapsulates the signature rules of different public chains (such as Ethereum's EIP-155, Solana's ED25519, Avalanche's C-Chain rules) into a unified interface, so wallets only need to connect to the protocol once to support the signature formats of all chains; DApps also do not need to concern themselves with the signature differences of different chains and can adapt to all wallets supporting WalletConnect simply by initiating requests according to protocol standards.
This 'abstract adaptation' brings about two major changes:
- User-side 'identity unification': Users only need one WalletConnect-supported wallet (such as Coinbase Wallet) to use the same set of private keys and addresses across all chains (some public chains support cross-chain address mapping). For example, if the user's address on Ethereum is '0xABC...', when connecting to a Solana DApp via WalletConnect, the protocol will automatically map this address to a Solana-compatible address 'ABC...', so users do not need to create a new account and can directly sign with their existing private key—this 'one wallet across all chains' experience completely breaks the 'identity island.'
- Simplification of rules on the developer side: For DApp developers, there is no longer a need to write different signature logics for different chains. For example, a cross-chain DeFi DApp needs to support Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche; in the past, it required the integration of signature SDKs for three chains, exceeding 1,000 lines of code; after integrating WalletConnect, it only needs to call the protocol's unified signature interface, reducing the code to less than 200 lines, improving development efficiency by 80%, and eliminating concerns about future adaptation to new chains.
As of 2024, WalletConnect has supported the signature rules of more than 40 mainstream public chains, with over 90% of 600 wallets achieving 'full-chain signature compatibility.' This 'cross-chain identity unification' not only lowers the operational threshold for users but also makes 'cross-chain asset flow' possible—when a user's identity is unified across all chains, cross-chain transfers, cross-chain staking, etc., can truly achieve 'seamless integration,' which is a key premise for Web3 to transition from a 'single-chain ecosystem' to 'multi-chain collaboration.'
III. The 'traceability' after signing: constructing the 'evidence chain' of transaction trust with session records
In Web3, the data after transaction signatures is stored on-chain, but the record of the 'signing process' (such as when connecting to the DApp, why initiating the signature, device information at the time of signing) is often missing. This 'process not being traceable' leads to two major issues: first, when users suffer asset losses, they cannot prove whether the signature was performed by themselves or stolen by hackers; second, it becomes difficult for regulatory bodies to trace 'suspicious transactions,' increasing compliance risks.
WalletConnect, through the 'session record storage' function, adds 'traceability' to the signing process, constructing a 'chain of evidence' for transaction trust. Its specific design includes two points:
- Local storage of session metadata: After the wallet establishes a connection with the DApp, it automatically records 'session metadata,' including connection time, DApp domain/icon, the number of transactions in this session, the transaction hashes of each signature, and device information used (such as phone model, IP address). This data is only stored in the user's local wallet and will not be uploaded to any third-party server; users can view historical session records at any time to confirm the context of each signature.
- On-chain signature and session record association: When a user completes a signature, the wallet binds the 'session ID' (a unique session identifier generated by the protocol) with the on-chain transaction hash and stores it locally. If there is a need to verify the legality of the transaction later (such as proving that the signature was done by the user), the user can retrieve the corresponding connection records and device information through the session ID and cross-verify with the on-chain transaction hash—this association of 'process records + on-chain data' forms a complete 'trust evidence chain.'
The value of this 'traceability' is particularly prominent in both user asset security and industry compliance:
- User asset protection: In 2023, a user lost their phone, leading to their wallet being stolen by someone else, and the hacker initiated multiple transfers through WalletConnect to connect to the DApp. After reporting the case, the user retrieved the device information (not their phone) and connection time (matching the time of phone loss) during the hacker's operation through session records in the wallet and combined this evidence with the on-chain transaction hash, ultimately assisting the police in identifying the hacker—this is the actual value of 'traceable session records.'
- Industry compliance promotion: With the refinement of global Web3 regulatory policies, some regions require platforms to trace 'high-risk transactions.' The session record function of WalletConnect provides technical support for compliance— for example, exchanges can retrieve users' signature session records (with user authorization) through the protocol interface to verify whether the transaction was conducted by the user, reducing anti-money laundering risks; regulatory bodies can also trace the initiation process of suspicious transactions through session records under legal compliance, balancing the relationship between 'decentralization' and 'compliance supervision.'
IV. The future of the value transmission layer: from 'trust chain' to 'Web3 collaborative base'
The evolution path of WalletConnect is essentially an upgrade from 'solving connection pain points' to 'establishing value transmission standards.' Its current core value is no longer just 'making wallet and DApp connections smoother,' but also providing a 'trusted value transmission framework' for Web3 transactions through a full-process design of 'information fidelity - identity unification - process traceability'—under this framework, each connection is the 'beginning of trust,' and each signature is the 'confirmation of value.'
However, as the 'value transmission layer' of Web3, WalletConnect still faces two major future challenges:
- Balancing privacy protection and traceability: Although the current session record function ensures traceability, it may also involve user privacy (such as device information, transaction habits). How to protect user privacy through technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs and privacy computing while maintaining 'traceability' and preventing session records from being misused is a technical direction the protocol needs to overcome.
- Adaptation of multimodal value transmission: As the Web3 ecosystem expands, 'value' is no longer limited to cryptocurrencies and NFTs but also includes data assets, digital identities, and physical assets (such as ownership of IoT devices). WalletConnect needs to further adapt the transmission and signature rules for these 'multimodal values,' for example, supporting 'data asset authorization signature' and 'physical device ownership transfer signature' to upgrade the protocol from an 'encrypted asset transmission layer' to a 'full-category value transmission layer.'
In any case, WalletConnect has proven that the core competitiveness of Web3 lies not only in the concept of 'decentralization' but also in the 'trustworthy' technological implementation. When the protocol allows users to confidently initiate signatures, enables developers to efficiently achieve cross-chain collaboration, and allows regulatory bodies to reasonably conduct traceability, Web3 can truly break through the 'niche circle' and become the 'value collaborative base' connecting the digital and physical worlds.
In the future, when users purchase digital properties in the metaverse, transfer device ownership in the Internet of Things, or allocate assets in a cross-chain ecosystem, it may all rely on the 'value transmission chain' constructed by WalletConnect—this ability to 'safely and efficiently transfer value' is indeed the core long-term value of Web3 infrastructure.
