Why have bitAssets been renamed to SmartCoins in 2.0?!

[JoeyD]

Your point is fine if it were made at bitshares inception. To rename the entire brand now would be another huge PR nightmare, would totally mess up all the search traffic and further confuse and muddy the perception of the product.

I'd agree with you were it not that "the product" has changed so much and is completely changing again. Or would you say that Btsx -> bts -> bts2 is not confusing when they are supposed to be different beasts all together with hardly any relation other than a chronological one. Besides that still leaves the smartcoin brand which is totally confusing seeing how many projects out there are already using the term.

Also the bitshares brand is not that strong or ubiquitous even in our small corner of the internet.

[monsterer]

To make my point as clear as I can: bit and coin have now become background noise instead of clear branding and only add to confusion and makes marketing or even just identifying itself that much more impossible.

Your point is fine if it were made at bitshares inception. To rename the entire brand now would be another huge PR nightmare, would totally mess up all the search traffic and further confuse and muddy the perception of the product.

[JoeyD]

NO No bit and no coin, ever. Both of them are the "e-" from the dotcom bubble, can anybody still name an e-blah company? QED, ergo, alpha omega: no bit and no coin, PERIOD.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I suggest you check the name of this blockchain, this forum, etc etc.

And how does that refute my point in any way? Don't take this the wrong way monsterer as the next part is not directed personally at you (I suspect a lack of caffeine to be the culprit in your case), but I seem to have to explain this point more than once.

Outside forum veterans I'm not very successful trying to differentiate this chain from all the other blockchains to new people. Actually in most of the best case scenarios people just confuse it with a project part of bitcoin. Hell I've seen notable people in this forums use the term dpos instead of bitshares when communicating in other communities.

I was too late on this forum to take part in the discussion on deciding the name bitshares. Although I might still not have been able to make my point clear as it seems people still fail to understand how big of a marketing faux-pas the "bit-" and "coin" terms represent.

To make my point as clear as I can: bit and coin have now become background noise instead of clear branding and only add to confusion and makes marketing or even just identifying itself that much more impossible.

[monsterer]

NO No bit and no coin, ever. Both of them are the "e-" from the dotcom bubble, can anybody still name an e-blah company? QED, ergo, alpha omega: no bit and no coin, PERIOD.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I suggest you check the name of this blockchain, this forum, etc etc.

[Tuck Fheman]

You all lose:

"smart property"

Please get on board with the rest of the planet.

Smart bitProperty ProtoAsset ContractMetaCoins ©

[JoeyD]

If the utility and tech is solid you could call it anything.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

NO No bit and no coin, ever. Both of them are the "e-" from the dotcom bubble, can anybody still name an e-blah company? QED, ergo, alpha omega: no bit and no coin, PERIOD.

Besides the complete lack of naming originality, why would you want to make it harder for yourself if you don't even want the coin connotation and confusion in the first place? Makes no sense to me.

[NewMine]

Didn't you know? Coming up with new names is 90% of the innovation!

That made me laugh. Thank you.

[cylonmaker2053]

I'm wary of regular name changes. Makes the brand look volatile and erodes some of the intangible equity built into the prior name. Of course, there are times for changes, so i'm not discounting it here, just urging caution.

[Empirical1.2]

'BitAssets' were always going to be hard to bootstrap and with various competitors using the same descriptor most notably BitReserve and more recently BitGold.com, BitAssets have become fairly generic and not brand specific. (BitGold.com has been advertising heavily and and have recently acquired GoldMoney & their large customer base for $42 million, so it's possible they may yet bootstrap BitGold.)

So the decision to consider changing the brand is perhaps a good one. However while 'Smartcoins' is a good descriptor, it is already a very generic term. Just in the last week...

http://www.coindesk.com/mirror-raises-8-8-million-bitcoin-smart-contracts-trading/
https://coinreport.net/symbiont-raises-1-25m-develop-smart-securities/


It's highly unlikely 'SmartCoins' will become specifically associated/bootstrapped with our price stable crypto-currencies and so is therefore probably weak to try use as the actual brand imo.

A SmartCoin is a cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to that of another asset, such as the US Dollar or gold.
SmartCoins provide the freedom of cryptocurrency with the stability of the dollar.

https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/

I suspect Smartcoins could soon be used to describe a wide range of offering from many competitors and seeing 'SmartCoins accepted here' will soon be as generic as 'BitAssets accepted here' - as in that could refer to BTS/BitReserve/BitGold etc.

If you were going to the change the brand I personally would have given our BitAssets a more individual and unique brand name.

[Ander]

You all lose:

"smart property"

Please get on board with the rest of the planet.

Smart property is the term that is being used by those whom you are trying to convince to use BitShares.

Smartcoins sound like a form of Smart property to me.  It works.

[Riverhead]

If the utility and tech is solid you could call it anything.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

[bitSmartAss]

SmartbitAssets© ftw

BitSmartAss!

[Tuck Fheman]

SmartbitAssets© ftw

[carpet ride]

I am definitely in favor of SmartCoins SmartChains


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xeroc]

Why not SmartMoney? Is there a legal issue with using "money" ?

Meh. Just doesn't sound...sexy enough.

 

BitGold ia not money? Neither is BitNASDAQ

[nomoreheroes7]

Why not SmartMoney? Is there a legal issue with using "money" ?

Meh. Just doesn't sound...sexy enough.

 

[lakerta06]

Why not SmartMoney? Is there a legal issue with using "money" ?

[fav]

As i understand, SmartCoin is the umbrella brand but BitUSD, etc.  will still remain .. but not under umbrella brand BitAssets, right?

I am fine with that .. but we need to communicate it properly!!

Personally i like BitAssets ...but i get the point .. when you want to describe BitAssets as a stable fiat market-pegged currency, most people won't get it!
Smartcoins are able to imitate every stable currency out there.. sounds easier to me .. but again .. i like BitAssets .. and i'm also thinking many have noticed BitAssets
during the past months .. anyway ...

 

SmartCoin is much easier to market to non crypto folks as digital money. no need to explain the bit part, or associate it with bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general.

[cass]

As i understand, SmartCoin is the umbrella brand but BitUSD, etc.  will still remain .. but not under umbrella brand BitAssets, right?

I am fine with that .. but we need to communicate it properly!!

Personally i like BitAssets ...but i get the point .. when you want to describe BitAssets as a stable fiat market-pegged currency, most people won't get it!
Smartcoins are able to imitate every stable currency out there.. sounds easier to me .. but again .. i like BitAssets .. and i'm also thinking many have noticed BitAssets
during the past months .. anyway ...

[xeroc]

As i understand, SmartCoin is the umbrella brand but BitUSD, etc.  will still remain .. but not under umbrella brand BitAssets, right?

I am fine with that .. but we need to communicate it properly!!

[cass]

As i understand, SmartCoin is the umbrella brand but BitUSD, etc.  will still remain .. but not under umbrella brand BitAssets, right?

[xeroc]

The "Devs" are trying to stay out of branding issues and trusting Max W, Adam, and MikeX.

... and couls they enlighten the community about their reasoning and join the discussions?

The decision seem to be made without community consensus (whatever that means)

[bytemaster]

The "Devs" are trying to stay out of branding issues and trusting Max W, Adam, and MikeX.   

[xeroc]

Smart is a terrible prefix - trendy, awkward and very difficult to market.

BitAssets piggyback the collective understanding that BitCoin has built over the past six years.

BitSomething = CryptoSomething

Smart also instantly alienates huge demographics of users and really only appeals to the 20 something and younger crowd.

I can't believe the devs are considering such a move, if in fact they are.

Immense damage to an already confused brand.

Just don't.

I tend to agree .. though I wouldnt call crypto a "huge" user base

[Tuck Fheman]

Smart is a terrible prefix - trendy, awkward and very difficult to market.

Immense damage to an already confused brand.

Listen OldMan,

You've got to evolve. If you can't handle "Smartcoins" how are you possibly going to deal with "Protocoins"© in 2016 when we give a nod to the original???

Disclaimer : Please don't bother reading this post unless you're coming in with a sense of humour. Put your glasses on OldMan, so you can read this. =b

[mint chocolate chip]

Anyone who has a website (or offline marketing materials, i.e. brochures) and has mentioned BitAssets, you should probably go and update every reference to the new SmartCoins (SmartChain as well). Doing so will help aid adoption and lessen confusion going forward if all of our auxiliary sites use the new name. I've spent most of the day today updating broken links from bitshares.org's overhaul and name change references for my two sites, bitsharesmarket.com and bitsharesblog.com

[bobmaloney]

I interpret this as allowing for term interchangeably.
I can see each term to have beneficial target demographics.

Plus, it seems one added benefit of CNX is that it creates a gateway, if you will - to play in the governmental regulation sandbox while remaining a completely separate entity than Bitshares...a state-watching sentry by proxy.

[bitmeat]

Bit SmartMarmot sounds so much better than BitMarmot.

[sschechter]

I think of a Smart Coin as a coin with a unique set of digital properties.  BitAssets are a type of Smart Coins - UIA's are another.  I'm sure people can come up with many others.  It is a good idea to use both terms.

[oldman]

Smart is a terrible prefix - trendy, awkward and very difficult to market.

BitAssets piggyback the collective understanding that BitCoin has built over the past six years.

BitSomething = CryptoSomething

Smart also instantly alienates huge demographics of users and really only appeals to the 20 something and younger crowd.

I can't believe the devs are considering such a move, if in fact they are.

Immense damage to an already confused brand.

Just don't.

[liondani]

for the smart move.

+5 from me also...  and I want all smart watch owners make smart coins viral...  I can imagine our bitshares home page with a smart watch that clearly demonstrates bitshares2.0

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

  for the smart move.

[Erlich Bachman]

get rid of the shadow of bitcoin.

Yes, I think that everyone here has suffered enough "bit" fatigue to last a lifetime.

Bitcoin was hip....like 5 years ago.

Please, can we all just move on already.  it's mid 2015 for gods sake.

It's the smart thing to do.

will bitUSD keep its name?

Of course, but there is absolutely no good reason why bitUSD needs to be called a "BitShares bitasset"

For the love of god.

BitShares smart coin


see

[cylonmaker2053]

"Smartcoins" is an overarching rename of the bitassets, which will still individually retain their names, right? e.g. bitUSD will keep its name?

[fav]

I think smartcoin and smartchain is great and necessary, because it can get rid of the shadow of bitcoin.
When I see some crypto asset called bitXXX, I can't stop thinking about it is something originated from bitcoin.
Just like if there was one product called iXXX, it makes you to consider it as a Apple product.

  it's so much easier to market with the new name.

[profitofthegods]

I guess their main purpose is for people to use them to pay for things, so calling them coins rather than assets makes sense to me.

[麥可貓]

I think smartcoin and smartchain is great and necessary, because it can get rid of the shadow of bitcoin.
When I see some crypto asset called bitXXX, I can't stop thinking about it is something originated from bitcoin.
Just like if there was one product called iXXX, it makes you to consider it as a Apple product.

[Riverhead]

Good question. Probably related to regulatory reason but we'll have to wait for someone in the know to answer.

[bitmeat]

Didn't you know? Coming up with new names is 90% of the innovation!

[luckybit]

That is the whole point. To cause confusion so that less people will adopt the chain.

Remember the confusion around Bitshares X, Bitshares Y, Bitshares Z, etc?

Part of brand recognition is staying consistent. Pick one name and stick with it no matter what. Don't be like Mastercoin and change it to Omni and have Mastercoin holders not even know what happened to Mastercoin.

[monsterer]

Renaming bitAssets to SmartCoins would be great if you were creating a completely separate and competing blockchain to bitshares, but not if you are planning to 'upgrade' the chain.

By changing the name, you cause confusion and make the history of the technology even more muddy, IMO.