I prefer the NWC model where I just attach my chosen wallet to my client. It works well with both custodial wallets and lightning nodes. If people want the NIP-60 model, I think that should also be an option, but I don't think it should come at the expense of NWC.
Discussion
no one is saying "at the expense of NWC"
I am also trying to make NWC have a better UX
I've been hearing people lately talking about how NIP-60 "is the future of nostr", and how great it is that your wallet will follow you around from client to client. That sounds like it's being positioned to be the new standard while everything else is old news. If I've misinterpreted the reality of what's being discussed, then that's my error. But it sure does sound like NWC is on its way out based on these conversations.
Personally, I have no interest in a zap wallet that follows you from client to client. I prefer my wallet to be local, and under my control. I also don't want a seperate zap wallet. I just want my wallet to attach to the clients of my choice at my direction. For me, NWC is perfect for that, and works exactly as I want it to.
It is my hope that NIP-60 can exist alongside NWC, giving users more options and flexibility in how they choose to configure zap functionality. There's room for us all. Thank you for clarifying that, at least from your perspective, NWC isn't going anywhere.