Whoa!
WalletConnect changed how wallets talk to dApps, and that matters.
Most folks treat it like a convenience feature, not a security layer.
But for anyone moving serious value, that casual attitude is risky—because the UI can lie even when the chain says yes.
Here’s a longer thought: the handshake between wallet and app, the metadata they exchange, and the user’s mental model all combine into attack surfaces that deserve deliberate control, not blind trust.

Seriously?
Yes.
Pretty often the initial connection scope is glossed over.
You see a “connect” button, you click, and your wallet opens a window that looks familiar, so you approve.
My instinct said that was fine until I watched a rug-pull flow exploit transaction expectations—so I’m careful now.

Hmm…
Transaction simulation is the part that actually slows you down for good reasons.
It doesn’t just estimate gas; it predicts on-chain state changes and shows the exact calls as they’d execute.
On one hand a simulation can be noisy and confusing, though actually it reveals subtle mismatches between what the dApp UI displays and what the smart contracts will do.
Initially I thought a simple nonce/gas preview was enough, but then I realized that state-dependent reentrancy, slippage math, and approval scopes require full-stack simulation to expose the surprises.

Okay, so check this out—
When WalletConnect is used properly, you get a signed intent without exposing private keys to the dApp.
But here’s what bugs me about many setups: they let the dApp suggest arbitrary calldata and then funnel a raw tx to your wallet with tiny, cryptic labels.
I’m biased, but I prefer wallets that force visibility at the function level, showing decoded method names and argument values, because that prevents “approve forever” bad UX from turning into a theft vector.
That said, no single mitigation is perfect; layered defenses are the only realistic approach.

Short note.
Simulations catch about 70-90% of common user-facing errors.
They don’t catch every oracle manipulation, but they will catch wrong recipient addresses, token decimal mismatches, and obvious approval-overflows.
There are edge cases where on-chain state changes between simulation and execution (front-running, MEV reorgs), though good tooling flags those risks up front and suggests nonce management or gas strategies.
So yes, simulate—often very often, especially when interacting with complex contract flows.

Practical steps and where Rabby helps

First: always inspect the connection scope and never accept unlimited approvals for tokens you don’t plan to use.
Second: run a simulation that decodes calldata and shows token flow.
Third: if you’re making a multi-step DeFi move (like leverage + swap + supply), simulate each atomic part and watch out for slippage ladders.
For a wallet that emphasizes these patterns, check out rabby wallet official site—they’ve pushed several UX guardrails I find practical and not overbearing.

On a tactical level, here’s a checklist I use.
Pause before you connect.
Read the permission scope.
Run a tx simulation and verify the recipient, amounts, and method names.
If anything looks off, revoke and redo the flow from a trusted interface.

Some deeper mechanics.
Simulators build a local EVM-like environment, replaying the TX on a forked state to see outcomes without broadcasting.
This helps reveal reverts, slippage, or unexpected token transfers before you sign.
But remember, simulations are only as good as the fork state snapshot and the RPC node used, so pick reputable providers or run your own node if you need the highest fidelity.
Also, being aware of mempool risks and watching gas strategies reduces surprises when simulations differ from execution.

One more practical story (quick).
I once sent a DeFi LP migration that looked harmless in the UI.
Somethin’ clicked—an approval target was slightly different than the dApp’s shown address.
I simulated and found the migration actually routed fees to an attacker-controlled contract through a proxy, and the simulation showed the fee flow clearly, so I stopped the process and flagged the project.
That saved me a chunk and taught me to trust the decode, not just the labels.

On tool choice.
Not every wallet decodes calls or simulates reliably.
Some show a “confirm swap” screen with just numbers, which is trouble because numbers can hide logic (like transferFrom quirks, permit flows, or hooks that trigger additional calls).
Good wallets show human-readable method names and argument breakdowns, and they integrate simulation results with warnings when a call touches approvals or has complex internal transfers.
If you want that, prioritize wallets built for power users over ones built solely for onboarding.