MetaMask Snaps excels at deep, client-side privacy integration by allowing developers to install privacy-preserving modules directly into the wallet's runtime. For example, a Snap like Tornado Cash or a zero-knowledge proof generator can operate natively, giving users access to advanced cryptographic tools without leaving the interface. This approach prioritizes self-custody and minimizes external dependencies, but requires users to trust the specific Snap's code and MetaMask's review process.
LABS
Comparisons
MetaMask Snaps vs WalletConnect: A Technical Comparison for Wallet Privacy
An in-depth analysis comparing two leading approaches to enhancing wallet privacy: MetaMask Snaps for direct protocol integration and WalletConnect's relay-based session encryption. We evaluate architecture, security, and use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Two Paths to Wallet Privacy
A technical breakdown of two dominant architectural approaches to enhancing user privacy in web3 wallets.
WalletConnect takes a different approach by acting as a secure, decentralized messaging layer between wallets and dApps. Its privacy model is built on session management and peer-to-peer relays, preventing dApps from directly linking wallet addresses to IP addresses. This results in a trade-off: it provides robust connection-layer privacy for dApp interactions but does not natively offer the advanced cryptographic operations (like zk-proof generation) that a Snap can. Its strength is in standardizing private communication, not private computation.
The key trade-off: If your priority is enabling advanced cryptographic privacy features (e.g., coin mixing, anonymous credentials) within a single wallet interface, choose MetaMask Snaps. If you prioritize standardized, connection-level privacy across a fragmented multi-wallet, multi-dApp ecosystem without requiring deep wallet modifications, choose WalletConnect.
tldr-summary
MetaMask Snaps vs WalletConnect
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural and privacy trade-offs for wallet extensibility and connectivity.
01
MetaMask Snaps: In-Wallet Extensibility
Architecture: Direct, permissioned plugin system within the MetaMask wallet. Snaps run in an isolated execution environment (Secure ECMAScript) inside the user's wallet.
Privacy Model: User data and transaction signing remain within the wallet's local context. However, the Snap's code must be audited and approved by MetaMask's curation process, creating a trusted-but-centralized gate.
Best For: Users and developers who prioritize deep wallet integration (e.g., custom transaction insights, non-EVM chain support via snaps like Bitcoin, Solana) and are comfortable with MetaMask's ecosystem governance.
02
WalletConnect: Protocol-Based Connectivity
Architecture: Open communication protocol (WC 2.0) that establishes a secure, encrypted link between a decentralized application (dApp) and any compatible wallet (mobile, desktop, hardware).
Privacy Model: The protocol itself is transport-agnostic, using relay servers or direct P2P connections. Privacy depends on the wallet's implementation; sensitive operations like signing never pass through relays. Offers wallet agnosticism, reducing vendor lock-in.
Best For: Applications needing broad wallet compatibility (100+ wallets) and users who value choice, or builders creating multi-wallet experiences without deep MetaMask integration.
03
Choose MetaMask Snaps For...
- Adding new blockchain networks (e.g., installing the StarkNet or Cosmos Snap).
- Integrating advanced transaction features like transaction simulation or phishing detection directly in the wallet UI.
- Building features that require persistent wallet state or background operations, like automated portfolio tracking.
- Teams already heavily invested in the MetaMask ecosystem seeking to enhance its core functionality.
04
Choose WalletConnect For...
- Connecting to dApps from mobile wallets (like Rainbow, Trust Wallet) via QR code or deep link.
- Building dApps that must support a wide range of user wallets without forcing a specific extension.
- Implementing session-based interactions with features like multi-chain requests and batch transactions (via WC 2.0).
- Projects prioritizing censorship-resistant connectivity, as the protocol allows for custom, self-hosted relay servers.
PRIVACY & FUNCTIONALITY COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: MetaMask Snaps vs WalletConnect Privacy
Direct comparison of privacy features, architecture, and integration scope for wallet connectivity.
| Metric / Feature | MetaMask Snaps | WalletConnect |
|---|---|---|
Native Privacy Mode | ||
Architecture | In-wallet plugin system | External protocol bridge |
Data Exposure to dApps | Full wallet state | Session-specific permissions |
Requires Third-Party RPC | ||
Supported Wallet Types | EVM only (via MetaMask) | Multi-chain (EVM, Solana, Cosmos) |
Session Permission Granularity | Snap-specific | Per dApp & method |
Direct Peer-to-Peer Connection |
pros-cons-a
WALLET PRIVACY COMPARISON
MetaMask Snaps vs WalletConnect: Privacy Showdown
A technical breakdown of privacy trade-offs between MetaMask's in-wallet extensibility and WalletConnect's session-based linking.
01
MetaMask Snaps: On-Device Privacy
Privacy by Isolation: Snaps run in a secure sandbox on the user's device, not on a remote server. Transaction signing and key management never leave the local environment.
Granular Control: Users approve each Snap's permissions (e.g., network access, transaction insights). This limits data exposure compared to blanket dApp connections.
Best For: Users prioritizing self-custody sovereignty and minimizing trust in third-party API services.
02
MetaMask Snaps: Privacy Limitations
Metadata Leakage to Consensys: Base MetaMask still connects to Infura RPCs by default, potentially exposing IP and wallet address metadata.
Snap Audit Surface: Each installed Snap expands the attack surface. A malicious or compromised Snap could phish for keys or monitor activity, though they cannot directly extract seeds.
Best Avoided For: Users requiring complete IP/network-level anonymity without manual RPC configuration.
03
WalletConnect: Protocol-Level Anonymity
No Centralized Tracking: WalletConnect v2 uses a decentralized relay network, preventing a single entity from logging all connection metadata. Session keys are ephemeral.
dApp-Facing Obfuscation: The dApp only sees the session, not the user's public address until a transaction is proposed. This enables privacy-preserving discovery.
Best For: Protocols building session-based experiences (e.g., gaming, social) or users connecting to dApps from mobile wallets.
04
WalletConnect: Privacy Trade-Offs
Relay Dependency: While decentralized, the relay network is a potential point for traffic analysis. Self-hosting the relay is complex for most users.
Approval Phishing Risk: The connection request UI is controlled by the dApp, which can be spoofed more easily than a wallet's native interface, leading to malicious transaction approvals.
Best Avoided For: High-value institutional transactions where any external network dependency is unacceptable.
pros-cons-b
Architectural Trade-offs
WalletConnect Privacy: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of privacy models for wallet-to-dapp connections. MetaMask Snaps uses a local-first, permissioned approach, while WalletConnect employs a relay-based, session-based model.
01
MetaMask Snaps: Local Privacy Control
Direct, permissioned connections: Snaps run locally in the user's wallet, processing data (e.g., transaction insights, signatures) without routing through third-party servers. This matters for sensitive DeFi operations where transaction data should not be exposed to relay networks.
0 Relays
External Servers
03
WalletConnect: No Persistent Identifiers
Session-based linking: Connections are established via one-time QR codes or deep links, creating ephemeral sessions. This matters for public-facing dapps where user anonymity is critical, as it avoids linking wallet addresses to IP addresses across multiple sessions.
~30M
Monthly Connections
05
MetaMask Snaps: Centralized Gatekeeper Risk
Snap discovery is curated: All Snaps are vetted and distributed via MetaMask's official registry. This matters for developers seeking censorship resistance, as a rejected Snap cannot be easily installed, centralizing control over privacy-enhancing tools.
06
WalletConnect: Protocol-Level Privacy Gaps
Limited payload encryption in v1: WalletConnect v1 sessions did not encrypt all metadata. While v2 improves this, the relay model is fundamental. This matters for high-value institutional traders who require end-to-end, peer-to-peer encrypted channels without any intermediary.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
MetaMask Snaps for Privacy
Verdict: Limited. Snaps are extensions that run in a semi-isolated environment but still operate within the MetaMask wallet context. Your primary account identity and transaction graph remain exposed on-chain. Privacy-focused Snaps (like Tornado Cash Snap) can abstract interactions but don't fundamentally change the wallet's address-based linking. Best For: Users who need to interact with privacy dApps (e.g., Aztec, Tornado Cash) from a familiar interface without switching wallets. It's a convenience layer, not a privacy solution.
WalletConnect with Privacy
Verdict: Superior for on-chain obfuscation. WalletConnect is a protocol, not a wallet. Pairing with a truly private wallet (e.g., Railway, Zengo, or a hardware wallet with temporary addresses) decouples your session from your persistent identity. Use Session Keys for limited, revocable permissions. Best For: Users prioritizing transaction graph separation. Connect a private wallet to a dApp frontend; your main wallet address is never exposed to the dApp's servers, reducing fingerprinting risks.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between MetaMask Snaps and WalletConnect for privacy depends on your application's architecture and user experience priorities.
MetaMask Snaps excels at deep, wallet-level privacy integrations because it operates as a first-party extension within the dominant EVM wallet. For example, a Snap like Tornado Cash Snap can enable private transactions directly in the user's interface, leveraging the wallet's native security model and user trust. This approach is ideal for dApps that require complex, on-chain privacy actions (e.g., zk-proof generation) without forcing users to leave their primary wallet environment.
WalletConnect takes a different approach by acting as a universal, session-based communication protocol. This results in a trade-off: while it offers broad multi-chain and multi-wallet compatibility (connecting to over 350 wallets), privacy is managed at the session layer. Features like session namespaces and optional chain/account exposure give dApps fine-grained control over data sharing, but ultimate privacy enforcement depends on the connected wallet's capabilities and the dApp's implementation.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deep, wallet-native privacy features for EVM users and you can accept being MetaMask-specific, choose MetaMask Snaps. If you prioritize universal compatibility, multi-chain support, and letting users choose their own privacy-hardened wallet (like Railway or Brave Wallet), choose WalletConnect. For maximum privacy, the strategic choice is often WalletConnect paired with a privacy-focused wallet, rather than relying on a Snap within a non-private default wallet.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall