In Web3, middleware protocols hold a paradoxical role. They are the critical glue that connects wallets to apps, aggregates liquidity, or delivers cross-chain data—yet their tokens often struggle to capture value precisely because this role is invisible to most users. For WalletConnect and its native token $WCT, long-term sustainability depends on whether its tokenomics can evolve into a model that both secures the network and creates durable demand. Looking at other middleware tokens offers important lessons on what works, what fails, and where @WalletConnect can innovate.
🔹 Lessons from The Graph (GRT)
The Graph pioneered decentralized indexing through staking. Indexers stake GRT to provide services, while delegators share in the rewards. This created strong initial demand but also exposed weaknesses: inflationary rewards led to sell pressure, and critics argue that token value hasn’t kept pace with protocol usage. For WalletConnect, the takeaway is clear—staking must eventually shift from inflationary incentives toward fee-driven utility directly tied to real usage.
🔹 Insights from Chainlink (LINK)
Chainlink’s tokenomics rely on staking and node collateralization to secure oracle services. What differentiates LINK is its adoption by enterprises and ability to capture value through fee payments. Unlike GRT, which leans heavily on emissions, LINK derives value from being indispensable infrastructure. WalletConnect could follow a similar trajectory, tying WCT to enterprise-level reliability. If businesses are required to stake or lock tokens for premium services, WCT demand would be directly linked to serious, recurring usage.
🔹 Caution from Pocket Network (POKT)
Pocket Network uses staking to operate decentralized RPC nodes, rewarding traffic volume. While the model is compelling, oversupply and inflation have challenged sustainability. @WalletConnect must avoid these pitfalls by designing scalable token sinks—for example, redirecting fees, token burns, or service-level staking requirements. This ensures that demand grows proportionally with usage, rather than being drowned in excess supply.
🔹 A Model from API3
API3 ties staking not only to governance but also to insurance-backed service guarantees. Stakers effectively underwrite reliability, creating a reputational and economic commitment. @WalletConnect could adopt a similar approach, linking WCT staking to service quality in node operations. This transforms staking into more than just yield—it becomes a trust mechanism that enforces reliability across connections.
🔹 WalletConnect’s Unique Advantage
Unlike other middleware protocols still fighting for adoption, WalletConnect is already the default standard across thousands of apps and millions of wallets. Its ubiquity gives WCT a rare edge: the ability to embed token utility into millions of daily, invisible interactions. The challenge is no longer adoption—it’s ensuring that adoption translates into token demand.
🔹 The Path Forward
Middleware tokens succeed when they balance three forces:
Staking → for network security.
Fees → as direct demand sinks.
Governance → to align incentives.
GRT relied too heavily on inflation. LINK thrived through enterprise adoption. POKT struggled with oversupply. API3 built value through service guarantees. @WalletConnect has the chance to synthesize these lessons—making WCT both the stake that secures the network, the fee token that captures usage, and the governance tool that drives alignment.
🔹 Conclusion
If designed well, WCT could avoid the pitfalls that weakened other middleware tokens and emerge as the blueprint for sustainable Web3 tokenomics. Middleware may be invisible to users, but it determines usability—and with the right model, WalletConnect’s token can turn this invisible infrastructure into one of Web3’s most visible engines of value.