Proposal Name B (Draft)

Since there’s been some confusion lately about what the naming conventions for the t2cr should be I propose some specific guidelines to the Name A proposal.

Let us assume there are two types of tokens:

  • Governance tokens
  • Utility tokens

Guideline 1

  • If the token is a governance token or clearly will be in the future, it should carry the name of the project.
  • If the token is a utility token and the only token that, to the best of your knowledge, will be issued by the respective project it should be named after the project.
  • If the token is a utility token and one of multiple tokens (to be) issued by the same project, it should be named such that it is distinct and most clearly represents it’s use case.
  • If the token is both a governance token and utility token, it should carry the name of the project.

This should cover most if not all cases.

Most people more easily identify tokens by their respective projects than by their actual token names. This is especially true for new people in the ecosystem.

Guideline 2

  • Suffixes such as, but not limited to: “Token”, “Coin” should generally be avoided, unless a name with suffix is already well established.

Avoid clutter

Guideline 3

  • Names should be treated like brand names (spelling wise). This means that the correct spelling is dictated by the project owners, unless consensus forms around a different spelling.

Current examples in the t2cr are:

  • aelf -> NOT Aelf
  • 0x -> NOT zeroX
  • SingularityNET -> NOT SingularityNet

I’d love to get some feedback on what the community thinks about this proposal. If you think I clearly missed something please let me know :slight_smile:. This proposal is just a rough draft and I will formalize it a bit more if we put it up to a vote.

Hi, could you rename it Proposal Name B?

1 Like

Not to much of a fan of Guideline 1 anymore to be honest. I’ve found that, in quite a lot of cases, the project name would be different from the most commonly used name. Furthermore there would just be too many edge cases. I’m afraid that this will hinder adoption of the TCR. I’m leaving this proposal as is (for now) to get more feedback. I still think Guideline 2 and Guideline 3 are good additions to the name policy.

I think the Guideline 1 introduces too much unnecessary complexity. Then we would have to discuss what counts as a governance token and a utility token. That’s an endless discussion.

Guideline 2: looks good to me.

Guideline 3: The good thing about this is that it provides a clearer criteria. If we want to make it even clearer, we could use the name that the project uses in their white paper (or some other verifiable name).

1 Like

Yes guideline 1 is still a touch broad and will likely lead to vague submissions.

Guidelines 2 and 3 seem reasonable and for naming convention, one would assume the actual token name as stated on the projects website / content / marketing would make the most sense although I understand some exchanges may not adhere to that policy.

For the guideline 2, I would add an exception when the term “token” or “coin” is widely used.
Like “Binance Coin” or “Bee Token”.

I would oppose guideline 3 as we can see that naming can be a subject of dispute like with [Bitcoin/Bitcoin Core] / Bitcoin Cash both claiming to be Bitcoin.
Same as [Ethereum/Ethereum Fondation] / [Ethereum Classic].

So the way this proposal was written is as and amendment to Proposal Name A.

“The name should be the most commonly used name to refer to the asset. It does not necessarily need to be the official name given by project creators nor the one in the token contract.”

This text in Proposal Name A already implies that if a token has a commonly used spelling, that should be used instead. So “Binance Coin” should NOT be listed as “Binance”.

Guideline 3 merely concerns itself with spelling. I’d argue that spelling and naming are two different things entirely.
To use your example. Once it’s established that an asset is called bitcoincash, spelling should be treated as if it was a brand name. So “Bitcoin Cash” as established by the project.
This guideline is meant to reinforce the importance op capitalization and spaces. It does NOT concern itself with naming.

Ok, both of your answers make sense.
If you can add a few lines in the proposals to disambiguate those issues, we can put them to vote.

Will do this in the coming days

I changed Guideline 2 and 3 to be a little more clear. I don’t want to add a bunch of more text the the guidelines themselves as the policy sheet will become enormous then. Thoughts?

Guys, is there something else you would like to add or subtract from the proposal? If not, I will formulate it in its’ final form today and get it ready for voting.

I removed some examples in Guideline 3 as it’s too suggestive and not only concerns spelling. Moreover it conflicts with what Guidline 2 implies

Ok I updated in the final doc.