Let's rebrand the name to Graphene

[James212]

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.

 

[James212]

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.

  ,   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. 

[mangou007]

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... 

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Stick to Bitshares.. I think this is just the final stages of this 'we must rename everything' bug that's been going around.

[EstefanTT]

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 !

[luckybit]

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.

[EstefanTT]

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.

 

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.

[triox]

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.

[Akado]

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.

[lil_jay890]

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.

[fav]

smartshares of course

[Frodo]

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.

[jakub]

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.

[D4vegee]

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?

[Method-X]

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.