When I first read about DPOS a couple of weeks back, I instantly wanted to buy some bitshares for obvious reasons. The first thing I did was to hit up coinmarketcap.com, to check out which exchanges had the highest volume.
When I saw BitShares X listed as number 4 on coinmarketcap, I was immediately confused. My first thought was literally "Why is the X there, does that mean it's not the real BitShares?". I scrolled down further to see if I could find the "real" bitshares, and when I failed to do so, I went to google "bitshares x" to find out what it actually was, and if it was the DPOS coin I was looking to buy.
Had the number 4 spot on coinmarketcap been BitShares, I would have just clicked for the exchange, then went to buy immediately.
One of the things that makes bitcoin so great is the name. I assume Satoshi is primarily a programmer, but he deserves a freaking prize for choosing a name that is such an amazing brand as Bitcoin.
Every altcoin since bitcoin has had a stupid name. Seeing rows upon rows of coin coin coin coin makes me want to facepalm. Bitshares is the first alternative blockchain system that has a good name. And by insisting on calling the main blockchain BitSharesX, we are throwing that massive advantage away.
I understand the reasons why the x is there. Bitshares is an ecosystem. Bitshares is a toolkit. Bitshares is more than just a coin.
But the fact is that decentralized banking and payments is the most important and revolutionary use of blockchain technology, by orders of magnitude. Decentralized music, DNS, computer games, whatever is a big deal, sure, but it is not nearly as big of a deal as decentralized money.
Since BTSX is, and will always be, the flagship of BitShares, I think it is a massive mistake not to use the fantastic brand name that could be used on it. Something that handles your money is something you need to trust pretty much more than anything else. And anything with "x" in it, just becomes instantly less trustworthy. Honestly, X is the least trustworthy letter in the alphabet, I'm sure some sort of psychological test could be done that would back up my opinion on this
edit: Also, given that BitSharesX is the flagship, that also means it is the gateway from which many people will be introduced to all the future DAC's that will be based on BitShares. This means that BitSharesX having a crappy name will reflect badly on all the other DACS, and also hurt adoption of them.
Why can't what is currently called "BitShares" just be called "The BitShares Ecosystem", and BitSharesX be called BitShares? Right now, whenever I see bitshares mentioned in casual conversation, people just use bitshares anyway (see what I did there?). And when people talk about what is really called BitShares, they always specificy it as "Bitshares is actually an ecosystem etc...". So this is already the de facto case, and it would be really easy to switch over.
The currently dual use of the words even amplifies the negative aspect: Newcomers get really confused when they see people talk about bitshares, and then find out that they cant actually buy it, but have to buy something with an X instead. I'm sure interest is often lost due to this extra confusion in a space that is already incredibly complex and confusing. I'm convinced that switching to BitShares would have a massive benefit for adoption in the longterm, and that it will even help with regulatory acceptance ("BitShares... That sounds like Bitcoin" vs "Bitshares X... Is that for porn?")
Also another thing I hate about bitsharesx is the placement of the X. It's never consistent, and that makes it confusing. Sometimes its BitSharesX, sometimes its BitShares X. Sometimes it will freely interchange between the two within a single post or document, and that is just terribly ugly to read.
This is all just my rambling personal opinion, of course. I'd like to see the counterarguments, but I imagine many people who have recently gotten into bitshares(x), like me, agree with me because they still remember their first encounter with "what the hell does the x mean?". If there is sufficient controversy about this, perhaps a stakeholder vote could be done at some point using the delegates as a proxy.