Regards the name, Sparkle sounds quite feminine. Have you considered just 'Spark'. That sounds more masculine and impactful. Spark a fire/revolution/idea etc.
'All you need is a Spark'
Good grief! Your comment sparked me.
I would think it's empirically obvious that feminine IS impactful. What's your problem with feminine? And anyway, I don't particularly like the name BitShares, but think it would be silly to get sidetracked by aesthetics instead of finding out if it were a worthwhile thing or not.
Apologies for the offence Mira
Thank you for the apology Empirical1.1. Please know that I wasn't offended. I'm not easily offended, but rather quick to spark - and to sparkle
Your POV about focusing on the technology/whether it would work vs. aesthetics is valid. Once the tech is out there though (& Sparkle is mostly a clone), it comes down to who can sell it the best. Which is branding and marketing.
(Donkeypongs signature revised for the brand Sparkle gives you an idea of the issue - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11662.msg153882#msg153882)
I see your point. But there are other ways to visualize sparkle: a pile of gold coins sparkle (or so I've heard).
We are only constrained by our own willingness to reimagine everything.
I've no idea if the OP is a good idea or not. But I am somewhat confused by the negative responses I've seen to 3rd part DAC proposals (except for TonyK2, who usually embeds suggestions for improvement in his heckling). I thought that one of the beautiful ideas in BitShares was the idea of DACs that honor the social consensus, thereby growing the ecosystem in general and providing a marketing function for BitShares at the same time.