Let's rebrand the name to Graphene

[jakub]

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

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.

[James212]

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")

[bobmaloney]

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.

[d3adh3ad]

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>

I heard several of the devs have cars with doors that open upward. Not outword.... Upward... Like this..  \=/   

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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>

[Empirical1.2]

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.

[d3adh3ad]

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?

[donkeypong]

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

[sumantso]

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

[jakub]

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.

[Akado]

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.

[James212]

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....

[lil_jay890]

Plus what growing, young company doesn't have baggage or growing pains?  This is more of a badge of honor than a problem.

[Ben Mason]

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.

[EstefanTT]

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.