Proposal Name B


#1

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.

Rationale
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 be avoided.

Rationale
Avoid clutter

Guideline 3

  • Project 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 name.

Rationale
Current examples in the t2cr are:

  • aelf -> NOT Aelf
  • 0x -> NOT zeroX, ZRX
  • SingularityNET -> NOT SingularityNet
  • Kyber Network -> NOT Kyber

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.


Proposal Name A
#2

Hi, could you rename it Proposal Name B?


#3

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.


#4

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).


#5

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.