0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bitshares is hard to understand for first time listeners and graphene even more.Add: Changing the name seems unimportant to me right now. Important would be to make charity in order to show that we care about poor people. I think that I could do that well.The people want that. We run this here too conservative. Once the people in the world will see charity, they want to support it. Microfinancing individuals. Perfect job for me but..
I would be open to hearing what a marketing professional has to say about a rebrand. We need to remember that being a professional does not make you infallible though. I am leaning pretty heavily against rebranding as a default for pretty much the same reasons empirical pointed out above. I am willing to listen to reason though.
I personally don't think it's worth doing at this stage unless there was really wide community support.
If people do not come back because of the bad fame of Bitshares, then we can consider to change name.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on August 18, 2015, 02:49:50 pmAlso as you can see by the response opinions are divided and so it may do more harm than good to the short term valuation which is already pretty low/fragile. Concerns for short term valuation - that's exactly what I am banging about. The big picture is being lost.
Also as you can see by the response opinions are divided and so it may do more harm than good to the short term valuation which is already pretty low/fragile.
My thought process was quite simple: if the community generally likes the Graphene name and our non-existent marketing department says it is a much better name to work with, then we should just have it.(of course provided that CNX would offer it)If we limit ourselves to the bitcointalk/coinmarketcap audience or particular domain names that have already been bought or the marketing stuff already produced - then yes, this is a quite painful and possibly risky rebranding issue.But if we take into account the big picture, where 99% of our future users have not yet heard of BitShares - then this is not a rebranding issue, this a branding issue.And if it's a branding issue, then IMO it should be decided and managed by professionals who have done it before. Of course with the consent of the community but not driven by its particular interests.
The only person on this forum (that I am aware of) who does marketing as his profession is Method-X.As I trust Bytemaster with the technical stuff, I would also trust Method-X with the rebranding issue.
While it does sound cool, I thought naming the new toolkit 'Graphene' was stupid in the first place.Why? There is an actual thing out there which is highly established and might get even more popular with every passing day, it even bagged a Nobel prize a few years back. Everyone compares with Ethereum and Ether, but they forget that Ethereum word didn't exist before; and Ether was just a concept used to explain which got discarded ages back.Ripple: A word which relates to waves, nothing specificDash: A verbStellar: An adjectiveI didn't raise this issue earlier as I know its pointless but I actually laughed out when I heard it and thought that it was some joke, and I couldn't take it seriously. There are already big screen TVs being mass produced using Graphene, and to me naming the toolkit such seemed moronic.If they liked the word so much even something like Graphane or Grafene would've made more sense.I guess there is no need to elaborate what my opinion is regarding rebranding BitShares to Graphene
Quote from: James212 on August 16, 2015, 06:46:11 pmbut drop the "2.0" all together in favor of new wording. I think - or at least, I'm hoping - that will immediately be dropped as soon as it's released.
but drop the "2.0" all together in favor of new wording.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on August 16, 2015, 10:44:12 pmQuote from: d3adh3ad on August 16, 2015, 08:50:03 pmHey Cryptonomex, you are already giving us a new toolkit and convincing a bunch of new chains to share drop on us. Can we have the name Graphene too? What about your cars? Can we have those too?Wait what?! I thought we already go their cars as part of the social consensus!!?! What kind of scam is this?!<s/c> [emoji14]I heard several of the devs have cars with doors that open upward. Not outword.... Upward... Like this.. \=/
Quote from: d3adh3ad on August 16, 2015, 08:50:03 pmHey Cryptonomex, you are already giving us a new toolkit and convincing a bunch of new chains to share drop on us. Can we have the name Graphene too? What about your cars? Can we have those too?Wait what?! I thought we already go their cars as part of the social consensus!!?! What kind of scam is this?!<s/c> [emoji14]
Hey Cryptonomex, you are already giving us a new toolkit and convincing a bunch of new chains to share drop on us. Can we have the name Graphene too? What about your cars? Can we have those too?
Quote from: d3adh3ad on August 16, 2015, 08:50:03 pmHey Cryptonomex, you are already giving us a new toolkit and convincing a bunch of new chains to share drop on us. Can we have the name Graphene too? What about your cars? Can we have those too?Wait what?! I thought we already go their cars as part of the social consensus!!?! What kind of scam is this?!<s/c>
I agree the name should be changed. Graphene sounds 1000x better than bitshares does. I asked this same question when Graphene was first announced and the answer is no, it can't be rebranded. Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure it has to do with some legal issue. If they license out Graphene to 3rd parties they can't have a public chain named the same thing. Something along those lines.
Moreover, people tired of "bit" something represent 0.0001% of the world population. The very ones who were in the crypto world since the beginning. Theses are not our public target, these guys just wants a good tech, even if the name is bitcryptoblockX and they don't like it.
Inspired by this:Quote from: donkeypong on August 16, 2015, 04:26:10 pmI'm sick of all the 'bit' names. Enough with the 'bit' shit. It doesn't need to be in every name.and this:Quote from: Method-X on August 13, 2015, 02:06:46 pmI would also recommend staying away from any and all cliches like "bit" for example. I would opt for a name that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. Example: Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar, Graphene. These are all great names.and also this:Quote from: valzav on August 16, 2015, 02:40:18 pmI suggested to call new version Graphene and I think the name works great so far, I was even advocating to rebrand Bitshares into Graphene completely.Why not take this 2.0 opportunity and upgrade the brand name as well?This is a perfect time to do it. The technology has been revised and rebuilt from scratch. So can be the name.People will take notice. It will be a good reason to take another look at our product for those who once tried and got disappointed by the UX.BitShares reborn as Graphene - a great story for the media.The name "BitShares" has a big sentimental value for most of us but if we were to choose again I think most of us would go for Graphene. We can have a great name and a great technology behind it.
I'm sick of all the 'bit' names. Enough with the 'bit' shit. It doesn't need to be in every name.
I would also recommend staying away from any and all cliches like "bit" for example. I would opt for a name that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. Example: Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar, Graphene. These are all great names.
I suggested to call new version Graphene and I think the name works great so far, I was even advocating to rebrand Bitshares into Graphene completely.
Graphene probably sounds better than BitShares but I don't think rebranding is a good idea for the following reasons:1. Confusion as what refers to what. (the blockchain, the corresponding core asset and the toolkit) It doesn't make sense to name the toolkit and the chain the same but the asset has a totally unrelated name.2. SEO. And I think this is a quite important one, at least for the chain. For the toolkit it doesn't matter that much.
Quote from: jabbajabbaつ◕_◕つ on August 16, 2015, 05:14:11 pmand what would the core asset be called?It can stay as BTS or BitShares. This is exactly what it is meant to be: our bit-shares in Graphene.
and what would the core asset be called?