Hi all,
As the Foundation is expected to wind down soon, one important consequence is that Wallet development, at least in its current Foundation-led form, will also come to a stop.
Given that the Wallet is one of the main entry points into the ecosystem, I think it is important for the community to discuss what role we want it to play going forward, and what level of support or development we are willing to commit to.
The purpose of this topic is not to push a specific outcome, but to outline the main questions and trade-offs so we can decide on a clear path forward.
1. What level of Wallet development do we want?
The first question is whether the Wallet should simply be maintained in its current form, or whether we want to continue actively developing it.
Option A — Maintenance only
One possible path is to consider the current Wallet feature set sufficient for the near future.
The Wallet already has a strong foundation and supports most existing ecosystem use cases. Under this approach, the focus would be limited to:
-
bug fixes;
-
security updates;
-
compatibility updates;
-
basic maintenance required to keep the Wallet functional and reliable.
This would avoid committing significant resources to new development while still preserving the Wallet as a useful tool for the ecosystem.
The main trade-off is that the Wallet would likely not evolve much beyond its current state.
Option B — Continued feature development
Another path is to continue actively improving the Wallet.
The Wallet is arguably the central point of interaction with many parts of the ecosystem. Continuing to develop it could help:
-
improve user experience;
-
support new ecosystem use cases;
-
attract new users;
-
retain existing users;
-
make integrations with other ecosystem components easier.
However, this option would require considerably more development effort, funding, coordination, and long-term ownership. It would also require clarity on who is responsible for prioritization, implementation, and maintenance.
2. How should Wallet development be organized?
Separate from deciding whether the Wallet should be maintained or actively developed, we also need to decide how development should be organized after the Foundation steps back.
There are a few possible approaches:
A. Community-led open-source project
The Wallet could become a fully community-driven open-source project, where development is handled by contributors from the ecosystem.
In this model, the codebase would remain open, contributors could propose improvements, and development priorities could be discussed publicly.
This approach would preserve openness and decentralization, but it may also make progress less predictable unless there are committed maintainers responsible for reviewing, merging, and coordinating work.
B. Maintained by a core developer or dedicated team contracted by the DAO
Another option is for the DAO to contract a core developer or a small team to maintain and develop the Wallet.
This would provide clearer ownership, continuity, and accountability. It would also make it easier to plan releases, prioritize work, handle security issues, and ensure the Wallet remains reliable.
The trade-off is that this requires ongoing funding and some level of centralized responsibility.
C. Hybrid approach
A middle-ground approach would be to keep the Wallet open-source and community-accessible, while also having one or more DAO-funded maintainers responsible for coordination, code review, releases, and critical maintenance.
This could allow the broader community to contribute, while still ensuring that the project has reliable ownership and does not depend entirely on volunteer availability.
3. Wallet neutrality, funding, and long-term sustainability
Separate from the questions of development scope and ownership, there is another important discussion to have: what principles should guide the Wallet going forward, and how should its development be funded?
Historically, because the Wallet was developed by the Foundation, it was expected to remain impartial and operate as a non-profit public good.
This meant avoiding certain types of functionality, such as:
-
revenue-generating features;
-
preferential ecosystem integrations;
-
commercial partnerships;
-
features that could be seen as favoring one project, service, or dApp over another.
With the Foundation stepping back, it may be worth re-evaluating whether this approach should continue unchanged.
There seem to be a few possible paths:
A. Keep the Wallet as a neutral public good
The Wallet remains community- or DAO-maintained, with no monetization and no preferential integrations.
This would preserve the current role of the Wallet as a neutral ecosystem tool, but it would also mean that maintenance and development need to be funded externally.
B. Allow the Wallet to become self-sustaining
The Wallet could be allowed to explore revenue streams, partnerships, or integrations that help fund its own development and maintenance.
This could make the Wallet more sustainable long term, but it may also raise questions around neutrality, governance, and which integrations are acceptable.
C. Keep the main Wallet neutral, but allow independent forks
Another possibility is to maintain the main Wallet as a neutral base wallet, while allowing separate teams or entities to create independent forks.
These forks could experiment with additional features, commercial integrations, or revenue models, while remaining separate from the DAO or community-maintained Wallet.
In this approach, the neutral Wallet remains a public good, while more product-oriented versions can evolve independently, just like any other ecosystem dApp.
Questions for discussion
A few key questions seem worth addressing:
-
Is the current Wallet feature set sufficient for the near future?
-
Should the community fund only maintenance, or also continued feature development?
-
Should Wallet development be community-led, DAO-contracted, or a hybrid of both?
-
Who should be responsible for releases, security fixes, and long-term maintenance?
-
Should the main Wallet remain strictly neutral and non-commercial?
-
Should monetization or commercial integrations be allowed if they help make the Wallet sustainable?
-
Would a forked model be healthier than changing the role of the main Wallet itself?
I think reaching alignment on these questions is important before making any commitments around funding, ownership, or development priorities.
Curious to hear how others see the future of the Wallet, both in terms of development scope, ownership, and long-term sustainability.
Note - These questions are asked in the context of me being available to facilitate whatever path we do choose.