Whoa!

I signed a multi-chain transaction in my browser the other day using a popular extension and my first impression was oddly optimistic. The UI looked tidy and the network switch was seamless. My instinct said the prompts weren’t telling the whole story, though. After stepping through the raw data I realized the trouble wasn’t math or keys — it was context and communication.

Really?

Yeah. Signing is a trust conversation disguised as a crypto operation. For users the question isn’t “Is this valid?” but rather “What am I actually agreeing to right now?” That distinction matters across chains because each chain speaks its own language and exposes different kinds of risk. On one hand chains like Ethereum standardize message schemas, though actually different L2s or sidechains add subtle differences that change the meaning of the same-looking prompt.

Hmm…

Initially I thought WalletConnect solved most UX woes by decoupling dapps and wallets. It helps a lot. But then I saw sessions where a dapp requested multiple signatures across EVM, Solana-style accounts, and a Cosmos zone, and the user was just clicking through prompts without knowing the consequences. My take: WalletConnect is a plumbing layer, not a UX designer. It’s excellent for device-agnostic connections, and it leaves the hard job—explaining intent—to the wallet and dapp.

Here’s the thing.

There are three layers to consider: signing semantics, network metadata, and session ergonomics. Signing semantics covers what data is signed — raw bytes, EIP-712 structured data, or chain-specific formats; network metadata is things like RPC endpoints, chain IDs, block timelines; session ergonomics is the actual handshake and how long a connection stays active. Each layer leaks user confusion in different ways. You can tighten one and still fail if the other two are sloppy.

Whoa, seriously?

Yep. Let me be concrete. EIP-712 gives a great pattern for human-readable intent on EVM chains, but it isn’t universal. Some chains lack a widely-adopted schema, so dapps invent ad-hoc messages that wallets struggle to render. Developers think “we’ll just show hex” and users think “I have no idea what I’m signing.” That gap is where social engineering and mistakes happen. For multi-chain flows you must map intent to a common, scannable summary and not rely on raw data alone.

Okay, so check this out—

WalletConnect V2 improved multi-chain session support by allowing a wallet and dapp to negotiate permissions per chain, which is a huge step forward. But permissions are only useful if they’re meaningful to humans. A “sign” permission on Chain A might be harmless, while on Chain B it could implicitly transfer assets. My recommendation for builders is to contextualize each permission with natural language, token amounts, and the originating contract address (with a link or explorer hash). Users need a story, not a blob.

I’m biased, but…

I’ve used a few browser extensions and mobile apps for months and one thing that stuck with me was how small helpers add up. Small helpers are things like: explicit chain labels (not just IDs), a “why” field pulled from the dapp’s manifest, and a preview of the post-signature state when possible. These are low-friction improvements that reduce accidental approvals. They don’t require changing consensus—just better UX choices by wallet devs and dapp teams.

Honestly, this part bugs me.

Session management is often treated as an afterthought. A dapp connects once and developers assume the user remembers the context hours later. In reality sessions should be ephemeral by default and require reauthorization for risky actions, like moving funds or changing a key. That sounds strict, but it’s also the kind of friction that prevents catastrophic mistakes. People accept a small prompt if it prevents a big loss later.

Actually, wait—let me rephrase that…

Security models should be tiered: low-risk reads, medium-risk non-financial writes, and high-risk asset movements. WalletConnect can surface those tiers if the dapp tags actions appropriately. The real work, though, is building UX flows that let users see what tier an action falls into without reading a manual. On-chain data often lets you infer tier (amounts, token approvals), so wallets should compute that and highlight it.

Wow!

Developer tools matter too. Libraries that produce human-friendly EIP-712 messages, or adapters that translate Solana or Cosmos signing formats into a previewable form, will be catalysts for better UX across the ecosystem. I tried a few community tools while prototyping and they saved hours. The ecosystem needs more opinionated adapters and design patterns so teams don’t reinvent the same confusing prompts over and over.

Practical tips — and one extension I keep recommending

If you want a pragmatic starting point, do these three things: show clear intent summaries, require reauth for sensitive actions, and limit long-lived sessions by default. Also, use WalletConnect for cross-device flow but don’t offload intent explanation to it alone. For folks who prefer a browser-first experience, I keep pointing colleagues toward trusted extensions like okx because they combine multi-chain support with decent intent surfaces and frequent updates. That aside, it’s still fine to mix tools—mobile wallets, hardware signers, and desktop extensions each have strengths when used deliberately.

Something felt off about one common pattern: token approvals shown as a single “allow” with no amount or expiration detail. That’s a UX sin. If a dapp asks for infinite approval, be loud about it and provide an easy revoke path. Also, show last-used timestamps for sessions so users can spot stale connections. These little details are very very important and they matter more than a lot of flashy design.

I’m not 100% sure about everything here.

There are trade-offs I haven’t solved perfectly: too many prompts annoy power users, and too few prompts expose novices to risk. On one hand, wallets can be aggressive and block flows; on the other hand, user education can’t scale if interfaces remain opaque. My working approach is to make defaults conservative while offering power modes for advanced users, and to log contextual hints that developers can use to debug confusing flows later.