It would be possible, but there's a balance we have to make here: if a spec is too complicated, most wallets will only implement a subset of it, and the end result is that the spec leads to more fragmentation in the ecosystem, rather than less. We already see this somewhat, with NWC defining lots of methods that only a minority of wallets support such as hold invoices or keysend payments. So there is an argument for keeping NWC simple, so that when a wallet says “we support NWC” everyone has a common understanding of what that means.

LexeConnect is designed to work with Lexe wallets and Lexe client credentials, which is why we didn’t name it something more generic. We certainly don’t intend for this to compete with NWC. I think the typical integration order for an app or service is: (1) support NWC including NWC-08. (2) If you have a more direct integration with Lexe, or want to make use of Lexe’s more advanced features with the subset of your users that are Lexe users, then integrate LexeConnect and Lexe’s SDK.

Btw, we published LexeConnect as CC-BY 4.0, so that other wallets are welcome to reuse and set their own parameters for our protocol if they need a simple and secure way to share a credential. I just don’t expect them to use this flow for NWC connections, since NWC already has a blessed way to offer this kind of UX with NWC-08.