Author Topic: dShares Name discussion  (Read 16271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mint chocolate chip

Why the redacted OP tonyk?

Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.

How about the name... Mutiny/Mutinous

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
dexSHARES

 :) I am aware of you choice...

I read signatures more than anyone else does (or should do).
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Offline Riverhead

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.


The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..

I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.

Advantium

Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.

All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.

Advantium from/for Advance/Advancing or Advantage -  is way cool (although I see my idea as 'back to the basics' more than  any 'real leap forward') which is  somewhat ironic.
But I do like Advantium in golden colours; aka fuzzy style text, if you know What I mean, like


ADVANTIUM


but better.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Tuck Fheman

Lucksacks.com - The Largest Cryptocurrency Freeroll Poker Site in the World!

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..

I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.

Advantium

Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.

All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

'My fork" as in the fork that I have paid for each single share competing with everybody else?

Thanks for the "I predict...cause I predict" statement. We are all very good at that... when we decide to.

My prediction is based on sound logical reasoning. Your rebuttal is more like "you're wrong just cause you're wrong" temper tantrum style.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

Slice is cool,
d in dShares stands for - digital; dex; "da shares" and dan - I will still insist on that, if I have a choice. (As for Dan I still find him genius, even somewhat lost of late)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 01:50:53 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline particlewave

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

dTranche
bitTranche
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 12:51:09 am by particlewave »

Offline Pheonike

How about calling it "Slice" instead of dshares.      So instead of shares users own slices of the whole.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 01:46:15 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.