WalletConnect v1 excelled at simplicity and rapid adoption due to its straightforward client-bridge-server architecture. This model enabled seamless connections between dApps like Uniswap and MetaMask with minimal integration overhead, powering millions of sessions. However, its reliance on a single, centralized bridge server introduced a critical point of failure and control, limiting scalability and censorship resistance for protocols requiring high reliability.
LABS
Comparisons
WalletConnect v1 vs WalletConnect v2: Protocol Evolution
A technical analysis comparing the legacy WalletConnect v1 protocol with the modern v2 architecture, focusing on multi-chain support, relay stability, and integration trade-offs for CTOs and engineering leads.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Protocol Evolution
A technical breakdown of the architectural shift from WalletConnect v1's centralized bridge to v2's decentralized relay network.
WalletConnect v2 takes a fundamentally different approach by implementing a decentralized relay network using the Waku protocol. This shift replaces the centralized bridge with a peer-to-peer messaging layer, resulting in enhanced resilience, censorship resistance, and the ability to support multi-chain namespaces. The trade-off is increased implementation complexity and a mandatory migration for all existing integrations, as the protocol is not backward compatible.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maintaining legacy dApp compatibility with minimal immediate engineering lift, v1 remains operational but is deprecated. If you prioritize future-proof infrastructure with decentralized architecture, improved reliability, and native multi-chain support for protocols like Ethereum, Polygon, and Solana, v2 is the mandatory choice. The evolution is a clear move from a convenient MVP to a production-ready, scalable web3 standard.
tldr-summary
WalletConnect v1 vs v2
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A technical breakdown of the protocol evolution, highlighting the critical trade-offs for infrastructure decisions.
01
WalletConnect v1: Pros
Mature & Stable: Battle-tested since 2018, with extensive integration across legacy dApps like Uniswap V2 and MetaMask. This matters for maintaining compatibility with older, established applications.
Simpler Architecture: Single, centralized relay server reduces initial implementation complexity. This is suitable for proof-of-concept projects or teams with limited infrastructure scope.
02
WalletConnect v1: Cons
Centralized Relayer: A single point of failure and control. The official bridge.walletconnect.org server handles all connections, creating a trust and scalability bottleneck.
Limited Multi-Chain Support: Built primarily for Ethereum. Adding support for non-EVM chains like Solana or Cosmos requires significant custom work, hindering multi-chain application development.
03
WalletConnect v2: Pros
Decentralized & Permissionless: Multi-relayer network allows anyone to run a relay, eliminating single points of failure. This is critical for censorship-resistant and highly available applications.
Native Multi-Chain: Protocol-level support for any blockchain (EVM, Solana, Cosmos, etc.) via Chain Agnostic CAIP-25 standard. This matters for wallets like Rainbow or dApps like OpenSea seeking universal connectivity.
04
WalletConnect v2: Cons
Increased Complexity: Requires managing session namespaces, pairing topics, and optional self-hosted relays. This introduces a steeper learning curve and development overhead.
Larger Payload Size: Enhanced features and metadata increase initial connection payloads, which can marginally impact performance on very slow networks compared to v1's leaner handshake.
PROTOCOL EVOLUTION
Feature Comparison: WalletConnect v1 vs v2
Direct comparison of key architectural and security changes between WalletConnect protocol versions.
| Metric / Feature | WalletConnect v1 | WalletConnect v2 |
|---|---|---|
Protocol Architecture | Client-to-Client Bridge | Client-to-Relay Network |
Multi-Chain Session Support | ||
Session Namespace & Permissions | Chain-agnostic | Granular (e.g., eip155:1) |
Default Relay Infrastructure | Centralized Bridge Server | Decentralized Relay Network |
Maximum Session Duration | ~24 hours | Unlimited (7-day default) |
Pairing & Session Separation | ||
Supported Message Types | JSON-RPC | JSON-RPC, Auth, Sign |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
WalletConnect v1 vs v2: Protocol Evolution
A technical breakdown of the legacy and modern WalletConnect protocols, highlighting key architectural trade-offs for integration decisions.
01
WalletConnect v1: Key Strength
Proven Simplicity & Stability: A battle-tested, single-bridge architecture that has powered millions of connections. Its straightforward JSON-RPC-over-WebSocket model is well-documented and understood, reducing initial integration complexity for basic dApps. This matters for maintaining legacy applications that require minimal changes.
02
WalletConnect v1: Critical Limitation
Single-Point-of-Failure Architecture: Relies on a centralized, hosted bridge server. This creates a trust and reliability bottleneck; if the bridge is down, all connections fail. It also lacks built-in multi-chain session management, forcing dApps to manage complex connection states across different chains like Ethereum Mainnet and Polygon.
03
WalletConnect v2: Key Strength
Decentralized & Multi-Chain by Design: Introduces a peer-to-peer relay network and explicit multi-chain namespace support (e.g., eip155:1, cosmos:cosmoshub-4). This eliminates the central bridge SPOF and allows a single session to handle interactions across Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos chains simultaneously. This matters for complex, cross-chain dApps and wallets like MetaMask and Trust Wallet.
04
WalletConnect v2: Integration Cost
Increased Implementation Complexity: The shift to a more robust protocol (CAIP standards, session namespaces, explicit permissions) requires a significant migration effort. Developers must handle new SDKs, manage structured session proposals, and update their UI flows. This matters for teams with limited bandwidth who need a simple, single-chain connection and view the v2 feature set as overkill.
pros-cons-b
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
WalletConnect v1 vs WalletConnect v2: Protocol Evolution
Key architectural changes, performance metrics, and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating wallet connectivity infrastructure.
01
WalletConnect v1: Legacy Stability
Proven Reliability: Powers thousands of legacy dApps like Uniswap v2 and OpenSea. This matters for maintaining compatibility with established user bases.
Simple Bridge Architecture: Uses a centralized relay server for message passing. This provides a straightforward, battle-tested integration path for basic connect-and-sign flows.
300K+
Peak Daily Connections
02
WalletConnect v1: Critical Limitations
Single-Chain Focus: Primarily designed for Ethereum. Multi-chain interactions require complex, error-prone workarounds, hindering protocols like Polygon or Avalanche.
No Permission System: Any dApp can request any signature after initial connection, increasing phishing risk and user friction for complex transactions.
Centralized Relay: Single point of failure and control. The v1 bridge has experienced outages, directly impacting dApp uptime.
03
WalletConnect v2: Multi-Chain Native
Chain-Agnostic Core: Built-in support for any blockchain (EVM, Solana, Cosmos). This matters for dApps like Rainbow Wallet or 1inch that operate across dozens of chains.
Session Management: Granular permissions per chain and method (e.g., allow eth_sendTransaction on Polygon, but only personal_sign on Ethereum). Drastically improves security UX.
50+
Supported Chains
04
WalletConnect v2: Migration Complexity
Breaking Changes: New API (@walletconnect/universal-provider) requires significant refactoring from v1's simple provider. This impacts engineering timelines.
Relay Network Cost: While decentralized, the new relay network may introduce variable latency and potential future cost considerations for high-volume dApps.
Ecosystem Fragmentation: Not all wallets and dApps have fully migrated, potentially creating a split user experience during transition.
WALLETCONNECT V1 VS V2
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security
A technical comparison of WalletConnect's protocol evolution, focusing on architectural changes, security improvements, and key trade-offs for developers building wallet-to-dapp communication.
WalletConnect v2 introduces a multi-chain, multi-bridge architecture, while v1 was a single-chain, single-bridge system. V1 used a centralized bridge server for all relay traffic, creating a potential bottleneck. V2 decentralizes this by allowing multiple, independent bridge servers, improving resilience and scalability. The core protocol was also rebuilt to be chain-agnostic from the ground up, natively supporting EVM, Solana, Cosmos, and others within a single session, unlike v1's Ethereum-centric design.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose WalletConnect v1 vs v2
WalletConnect v1 for Developers
Verdict: Legacy Support Only. Use only for maintaining existing applications where user migration is impossible. Strengths:
- Established Libraries: Mature SDKs (e.g.,
web3modalv1) with extensive community examples. - Simpler Protocol: Direct peer-to-peer socket connection, easier to debug at a basic level. Weaknesses:
- Deprecated Protocol: No new features, security patches, or official support from the WalletConnect Foundation.
- No Multi-Chain Accounts: Cannot natively handle EIP-155 (Chain ID) specification, complicating multi-chain apps.
- Bridge Reliability: Relies on a centralized bridge server, a single point of failure.
WalletConnect v2 for Developers
Verdict: The Mandatory Choice for New Projects. Strengths:
- Modern Standards: Built on EIP-155 (Chain ID) and EIP-695 (Account Switching), enabling seamless multi-chain interactions.
- Decentralized Relay Network: Uses a distributed Waku network, eliminating the centralized bridge failure risk.
- Enhanced APIs: Supports session namespaces for requesting specific chains (e.g.,
eip155:1,solana:mainnet) and methods. - Permission System: Fine-grained control over session permissions (chains, methods, events). Code Example (v2 Initialization):
javascriptimport { SignClient } from '@walletconnect/sign-client'; const client = await SignClient.init({ projectId: 'YOUR_PROJECT_ID', // Required for relay network metadata: { name: 'My Dapp', ... } });
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between WalletConnect v1 and v2 is a strategic decision between proven stability and modern, scalable architecture.
WalletConnect v1 excels at providing a stable, battle-tested connection for established dApps because its centralized bridge and simpler protocol have been the industry standard for years. For example, it powered the initial wave of DeFi and NFT applications, with its bridge handling millions of daily connections at its peak. Its primary strength is its extensive, immediate compatibility with a vast ecosystem of legacy wallets and dApps that have not yet migrated.
WalletConnect v2 takes a different approach by implementing a decentralized, multi-chain relay network and a modular session architecture. This results in superior scalability, lower operational risk, and native support for multi-chain operations and namespaces (e.g., eip155:1, solana:mainnet). The trade-off is the migration effort required, as developers must update SDKs and adapt to the new protocol structure, and some older wallets may lack support.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate, maximum compatibility with the broadest range of existing wallets (including older versions) and minimal integration changes, choose WalletConnect v1. If you prioritize future-proof scalability, decentralized infrastructure, and building sophisticated multi-chain dApps that require features like session management or chain-agnostic signing, choose WalletConnect v2. For all new development, v2 is the definitive choice, while maintaining v1 support may be necessary only for legacy user bases.
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