BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: jakub on August 16, 2015, 05:02:52 pm
-
Inspired by this:
I'm sick of all the 'bit' names. Enough with the 'bit' shit. It doesn't need to be in every name.
and this:
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.
and also this:
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.
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.
-
and what would the core asset be called?
-
I like neither the 'Bit' or the 'Shares' and was just this morning thinking about if Graphene would get more attention in no.5 spot behind Ether when BTS 2.0 launches.
I don't think it particularly helped Dash, and I probably would have kept their old brand, but it does show it can be done.
Considering we're not changing anything at all about the allocation, I think it could be a good idea.
BitShares also carries a bit of 'baggage' and could benefit from a fresh start in terms of branding too.
-
and 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.
-
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.
-
and 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.
Its a good idea and calling the coin within it BTS. Thing is would the developers want to surrender the 'Graphene' toolkit brand? For the sake of one of their DACs? They would then have to think of a new name for the toolkit?
-
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.
If that's the case then these priorities need to be reversed. The licensing entities don't care about the name but the final users do.
Graphene technology could be renamed to "GrapheneToolkit" or something like this.
-
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.
-
smartshares of course
-
Whatever makes cryptonomex more money is what will be done.
Being able to license the name graphene is much more lucrative than giving it to Bitshares. It also gives cryptonomex the ability to distance and split from Bitshares. Remember Bitshares is just cryptonomex's demo platform for graphene.
-
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.
It doesn't necessarily need to be Graphene. It could be other identical or related words. Graphite, Carbon, Atom, etc
Tbh I don't have a particular opinion atm, dunno if it would be a good or bad thing. However I'm too tired of seeing "bit-this" and "bit-that" names. Lacks meaning and impact. Doesn't sound like a good, powerful brand.
-
The products of the Bitshares decentralized financial platform are bitassets, smartcoins, etc. BTS are supposed to be like XRP - invisible to the end user.
Besides, such decisions would need to be tested. We really have no idea what is the current and potential perception of the brand. We're just guessing.
-
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.
+5% +5% +5%
We are starting to have each weeks more articles out there speaking about Bitshares. Changing the would be very confusing for people and destroy big part of the communication done so far.
There is also people working being the scenes on BitShares 2.0 projects related. Buying names like www.bitshares-something.xxx, working on contents where the name BitShares is relevant, ...
As an example, I'm revamping our actual Bitshares French Connexion web site. We would have to change all the media, translation, tutorials videos (xwork in progress), ...
I'm not even speaking about our name and website address.
I'm not the only one in that situation, think about the blog in spanish, bts.hk (the huge chinese website), btswolf, Bitshares TV, Bitshares 101 book, ... the list is very long.
It would add a lot of work at the community only to adjust to a new name. That amount of time would bring much more if used to promote and evolve BitShares.
The renaming thing of IDentabit has been fun and kind of justified but let's just stop there.
BitShares is a cool name, there is no real need to change it.
Let's focus on more important matters.
-
Inspired by this:
I'm sick of all the 'bit' names. Enough with the 'bit' shit. It doesn't need to be in every name.
and this:
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.
and also this:
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.
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.
We should keep Bitshares. It's not good to keep changing the name. The name change didn't do Mastercoin any good. Changing your name will make people think your company is in serious trouble and shareholders don't like constant changing of marketing names. In general people don't like inconsistency when they have money on the line.
-
I just saw the results of the poll ...
Are you serious ???? It's by far the worst idea I saw since I read this forum !
-
Stick to Bitshares.. I think this is just the final stages of this 'we must rename everything' bug that's been going around.
-
I totally agree with EstefanTT on this one...
This is a total nonsense... Business, or whatever brand change name when things go wrong... To "prove" that they have "changed" from the big bad old name...
This is not the case for BitShares!!!! Everything about it is positive, it has already been advertised by many people with this name, we did not encounter any major problem that can possibly justify a "name change"...
That will be ONLY very VERY confusing people about everything as we would be sending a WRONG message.... And that is the last thing we need...!!! >:(
It might be for some of you the best name ever, but this is not a "beauty pageant" guys... This is a cryptocurrency... Not a shoe brand... :o
-
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.
+5% +5% +5%, I was just contemplating this issue last week, but did not get the chance to write about it.
I absolutely agree. We should take this rare opportunity that we have in this upcoming "big"relaunch to rebrand and change the product name from Bitshares (Graphene would be a good candidate, but the decision should be very carefully weighed.) The Bitshares name has become passe and carries with it historical baggage. The name "BItshares 2.0" does not provide enough distance and break with the past. Additionally, in the mass market "2.0" is tech/geek-speak, that I think we want to avoid. It would be better for us to use universal terms ( or a unique catchy name... like Graphene(?)) The Markeing experts of this community should get together to seriously consider this issue.
-
Inspired by this:
I'm sick of all the 'bit' names. Enough with the 'bit' shit. It doesn't need to be in every name.
and this:
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.
and also this:
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.
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.
+5%
-
I would have agree if the rebrand would have be done with the 8th of june announcements. It was a good time to rebrand if the community would have wanted so. We didn't do it, now it's too late for that.
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.
-
Graphene is the tool that built the Bitshares network, not the Graphene network.
Bitshares is an idea, a philosophy, a community, with a digital constitution, built using the Graphene toolkit. Many in crypto are likely poised to see if Bitshares (with everything tied to the name) can deliver on its promise. To throw away the name Bitshares would be to throw away something of great value at this stage.
-
Plus what growing, young company doesn't have baggage or growing pains? This is more of a badge of honor than a problem.
-
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.
I don't quite agree with your statement, but I do see that the "against name change" folks have some good points, mainly that we have had goodwill built up over the past as well has issues what we'd like to put behind us, just as the multiple 90% pivots that have been made in the positioning of the product. That said, the solution may be to keep "Bitshares" as a minor element in the brand, but drop the "2.0" all together in favor of new wording. Just using the word "Graphene" for this example, in my mind it would look something like this:
bitshares
GRAPHENE
Just my thoughts....
-
but 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.
-
IMO the only valid criterium is this: What would we like the name to be if we were to choose it now?
Our past, emotional attachments or domain names bought by third parties are important but should not be the deciding factor.
I think issues like choosing a brand name or the risks v. benefits analysis associated with changing it should ultimately be left to people with marketing background.
Rational shareholders will not oppose the change as long as it can bring about a better valuation.
I can see that most arguments against come down to these three:
(1) The current name is our proud heritage.
(2) The change will be confusing or will be negatively perceived by the outside world.
(3) The change is inconvenient for me because I have already invested in marketing stuff based on the current name.
Here are my comments:
(1) It's an emotional argument, the outside world does not care about it.
(2) These are our assumptions about other people. We might be wrong here and we usually are.
(3) This is the past trying to determine the future. Again, the outside world does not care about it.
-
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 specific
Dash: A verb
Stellar: An adjective
I 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 ;D
-
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.
In terms of marketing, at this point, it would be a heck of a lot easier to start fresh with something new. There is a lot of baggage, as someone else pointed out. I still think BitShares is a great name. But is BitShares really what we're doing these days? Maybe, maybe not.
Graphene is an awesome name. But the substance graphene may be yesterday's news already. In scientific circles, now that 2D materials are all the rage, there may be other types that are better than graphene. See, for example, this article entitled "Black Phosphorus Surges Ahead of Graphene":
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-black-phosphorus-surges-graphene.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-08-black-phosphorus-surges-graphene.html)
-
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?
-
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?
Yes you're right, we all know CNX is the main show and that a lot of competing chains that they have much larger equity stakes in are being created by them. Using the name Graphene might interfere too much with their brand.
-
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?
Wait what?! I thought we already go their cars as part of the social consensus!!?!
What kind of scam is this?!
<s/c> :P
-
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?
Wait what?! I thought we already go their cars as part of the social consensus!!?!
What kind of scam is this?!
<s/c> :P
I heard several of the devs have cars with doors that open upward. Not outword.... Upward... Like this.. \=/ ;)
-
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?
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.. \=/ ;)
... And capable of 88mph. ;)
-
but 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.
That would be the very worst idea. We clearly need something to differentiate the new, greatly evolved, and much superior Bitshares from the "Bitshares" of the past. There clearly should be a distinction in the name between phase #1 Bitshares and phase #2 Bitshares (even if it's just adding the "2.0")
-
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 specific
Dash: A verb
Stellar: An adjective
I 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 ;D
Actually, your response makes a lot of sense, sumantso.
You think the Graphene name is "moronic" and that's a perfectly valid opinion and it's clear to me why you are against rebranding. You just don't like the name.
As for other people who are against, I'm not sure if it's the name itself or the act of rebranding that puts you off.
Now I wish I had asked a different question in the poll, namely: "Do you think that Graphene is a better name than BitShares?"
And if the result was more favorable for Graphene then we would have clear arguments to push for a change. But I guess it's too late now as things got mixed up.
I fucked it up because I made several unjustified assumptions:
(1) about there being a consensus among this community about the Graphene name being better than BitShares.
(2) about people here being able to judge this issue in a purely pragmatic way.
(3) about people here being able to avoid making speculative assumptions about "what the outside world would think of it".
Marketing is a difficult art as I've just learned by running this thread. Better to be left to professionals.
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.
-
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.
The difference in that example is that while Method is a talented marketing professional, BM is one of the top people in the world at what he does which is why you can put a lot of individual trust in him on technical stuff. (However thus far his somewhat transient/impermanent long term commitment to any one project/structure makes it hard for the market to give BTS a strong long term valuation that reflects said talent.)
I've also changed my mind on the rebrand. I think a Graphene blockchain + Liquid BitAssets + the referral programme + the partnerships they've already set up = A very strong comprehensive package that the market will like. So I would avoid anything that could deflect/divide/create controversy in the next two months including rebranding/other blockchains/voting power etc.
-
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.
That's the situation we are in:
- marketing professionals call for a better name
- we happen to have a better name at our disposal
- we even like this new name ourselves (sumantso excluded)
- 99% of our potential users will not even be aware of the change
And yet we seem to know better.
I am quite aware that this campaign is probably unwinnable but maybe it will make you realize how fragile we are in our decision making.
-
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.
As some have said quite a lot of work has actually gone into developing content, sites and other around the BitShares brand for the last two years, which we just don't see a lot of because BitAssets 1.0 didn't really gain traction.
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.
CNX themselves have some talented marketing guys as shareholders but I was personally unimpressed with the rebranding of BitAssets to Smartcoins - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16980.0.html
-
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.
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.
Concerns for short term valuation - that's exactly what I am banging about. The big picture is being lost.
BitShares will seriously struggle with another 3-6 months at this kind of valuation or lower, it will not be able to pay its way and lose valuable time/network effect to other competing projects. All for a rebrand that may or may not improve the long term valuation and effect SEO and a wide range of BitShares related content and other that has been built up the last two years. I personally don't think it's worth doing at this stage unless there was really wide community support.
-
I don't think we should change the name.
why not check what result will it be with 2.0?
If people do not come back because of the bad fame of Bitshares, then we can consider to change name.
-
I personally don't think it's worth doing at this stage unless there was really wide community support.
I fully agree - doing it without wide community support would be suicidal.
My point is only this: the community is unwilling to make an informed decision based on professional advice.
If people do not come back because of the bad fame of Bitshares, then we can consider to change name.
If we do that then the accusations like "this is just a desperate rebranding without any true change" will be quite difficult to fight.
-
Solution: a pro rename 0% delegate and a contra rename 0% delegate ..
Let shareholders decide
-
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'm not saying that we should change the name, but I'm not saying we shouldn't either. If you look at Google's history, Larry Page and Sergey Brin nicknamed their search engine "BackRub" then eventually changed their name to Google. Even Yahoo changed their name eventually, before that it was "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web". Both Google (began in 1996 nicknamed "BackRub", changed their name in to Google 1997) and Yahoo (January 1994 (as Jerry and David's guide to the World Wide Web) March 1995 (as Yahoo)) changed their name within a year.
-
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 am glad to hear this.
I'd like to propose the following actions:
(1) Run a forum poll asking a simple question:
As a name for a decentralized financial ecosystem, which one do you prefer in purely aesthetic terms: BitShares or Graphene?
If the majority of us vote for BitShares we should leave it here.
(2) Ask CNX if they are willing to share the Graphene name with us.
If the answer is negative we should leave it here.
(3) Run a debate involving marketing professionals. I hope we have a couple of them in this community.
The debate should be purely merit-based and for the time being exclude arguments concerning our past marketing-related investments (domain names, publications, info-graphics)
It could also touch the subject of what makes Ethereum so successful in this area - I guess we could learn a couple of things from them.
(4) Set up pro and con delegates and let the shareholders decide.
All I want is to make sure we make an informed rational decision here.
This can turn out to be our once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a rebrand so not doing it is as big a decision as doing it.
**********
Disclaimer: I like the Graphene name but I am not a marketing professional so I have no arguments in this debate.
I am trying to play the role of Jared from Pied Piper - i.e. encourage you to have a proper SWOT analysis ;)
-
Bitshares is one of the better, if not the best name out there. Its close to Bitcoin and people are still learning about bitcoin. Bitshares seems like the natural progression from a currency (BTC) to an investment (BTS). I don't understand why you think the name is bad. Bit this and Bit that? its part of the branding and I think its quite clever. I would be against any name changes.
-
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..
-
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..
The neat thing is that you can develop your own charity asset and promote it that way.
-
Makes me rethink my planned asset name, Chateaux Endeavour, lol