Why WalletConnect and Transaction Signing Still Feel Weird — and How dApp Connectors Can Fix It

Whoa! Wallet connections are getting better. Really? Yes. But the experience is still uneven. My first handshake with a dApp used to feel like passing a note in class. Quiet. Nervous. Risky. Now it’s mostly a browser-to-wallet handshake, and sometimes the note is legible. Sometimes it’s a ransom note.

Okay, so check this out—transaction signing is the single most intimate moment in Web3. It’s when you, as a user, tell your wallet “yes, spend money on my behalf” or “yes, approve this contract call” and that tiny cryptographic signature becomes permission. Short sentence. But the implications are long: signature types vary, UX varies, and the mechanics under the hood are messy enough to make security engineers sigh.

Here’s what bugs me about a lot of connector flows: they ask for signatures without good context. That’s an old, dumb mistake. My instinct said the problem was just UI; actually, wait—it’s partly UI, partly protocol design, and partly education. Initially I thought the answer was simply better modals, but then realized developers and wallets must coordinate on the message format, chain, gas, and intent. On one hand you have EIP-712 which helps structure intent, though actually many dApps still fall back to raw personal_sign calls that look like gibberish to humans.

WalletConnect changed a lot. It gave dApps a standard to connect mobile wallets to desktop browsers. It uses a bridge and a QR code or deep link to establish sessions. The connector negotiates a session, then proxies JSON-RPC requests to the wallet for signing. Sounds clean. It mostly is. But real-world flows introduce edgecases: chain switching prompts, multiple accounts, timeouts, and stale sessions that silently fail. Hmm… somethin’ about the UX feels like a game of telephone.

Fast note: WalletConnect v2 improved multi-chain sessions and improved relay network resilience. Good. But that upgrade also added complexity for dApp implementers, which means more implementation bugs. So trust, but verify—especially if you’re building a connector or a browser extension.

How Transaction Signing Works, In Plain English

Think of a transaction signature as your digital fingerprint attached to a very specific instruction. Short. The dApp prepares a payload—could be a token transfer, a contract call, or an approval—and sends it over the WalletConnect channel with a request to sign. The wallet shows a preview, the user checks, and taps confirm. Then the wallet produces a cryptographic signature and returns it to the dApp, which broadcasts the transaction to the chain.

But reality: what the wallet previews matters. Most wallets present the raw transaction fields and a decoded view when possible. EIP-712 allows human-readable messages with typed fields. This helps a ton for approvals and staking-type operations, because users can see “Transfer 100 USDC to Vault X” instead of some hex blob. However, not every dApp implements EIP-712. Some just pass opaque data and rely on the user’s trust in the UI. That is bad. Very very bad.

On mobile, WalletConnect deep links the request to your wallet app. On desktop, users scan a QR or use an extension that acts as the signer. Extensions like OKX Wallet Extension bridge that gap and let web pages talk directly to a local wallet. If you want a lightweight way to get a browser extension that handles signing, check out https://sites.google.com/cryptowalletuk.com/okx-wallet-extension/ —I’ve used it and it’s solid for basic dApp interactions. I’m biased, but it’s a dependable experience compared to some random mobile wallets that drop connection unexpectedly.

Security-wise, the crucial points are: the integrity of the session, the clarity of the signing message, and the wallet’s key isolation. If the connector leaks session details or fails to verify the peer, you’re toast. If the dApp can’t clearly express intent, users will click through. If a wallet stores keys in a weak enclave, the cryptography doesn’t matter.

Now let’s get technical, for a beat. WalletConnect essentially proxies JSON-RPC: eth_sendTransaction, eth_signTypedData_v4, personal_sign, and so on. The wallet receives a request and may ask the user to confirm. That confirmation is the UX gate, but the technical gate is the signing algorithm—usually ECDSA over secp256k1 for Ethereum-like chains. The wallet signs the digest and returns the signature in a standardized format. Long sentence that ties many pieces together, because the user-facing act (tap confirm) is really the endpoint of a chain of decisions, verifications, gas calculations, and nonce management performed by the wallet and the dApp backend.

On-chain replay protection, chain-id checks, and EIP-155 all matter here. If any of those are off, signatures can be replayed on other networks. That one bit has tripped up more than a few projects. So, pro tip: always include chainId in the signed payload.

Design Patterns for Better dApp Connectors

Start with clear intent. Tell the user what the signature will do. Short. Use typed data for approvals when you can. Validate the session origin and show it. Offer a preview that aligns with the on-chain action. Also, handle errors gracefully—timeouts, disconnections, and chain mismatches must surface as clear steps the user can take. Don’t leave them guessing.

Implement progressive disclosure. Show the headline first—what will happen—and then let power users expand to see the full raw payload. This reduces fear. It also reduces accidental approvals. Oh, and by the way, always surface gas estimates and transaction speed options before final confirmation… because surprise high fees are a user trust killer.

For developers building connectors: test across a matrix of wallets. WalletConnect is a spec, but every wallet has quirks. Mock sessions, replay scenarios, and chain-switch flows. Integrate EIP-712 where possible. And instrument telemetry for session failures so you can fix the top three reasons users disconnect.

I’m wrapping up but not closing the book. The road forward is iterative. On one hand, better standards like EIP-712 and WalletConnect v2 reduce ambiguity. On the other, human behavior and rushed integrations keep introducing risk. So my final thought: prioritize clarity over cleverness. Build connectors that explain, wallets that protect, and UX that respects user attention. Yep—simple, and hard.