NIS1 & NEM Naming Convention

Announcements NEM Marketing
#1

This post is intended to explore the appetite for a community-led approach to exploring and agreeing a new name and convention for NIS1, NEM’s original blockchain.

Background

Prior to Symbol launch, there was a need to find a name quickly to differentiate our original blockchain from and within the wider NEM ecosystem. We needed a name that could sit alongside Symbol and within NEM, enabling us to start building and communicating the NEM ecosystem which now includes two blockchains, two tokens and multiple partners, entities and communities that make it up.

NEM NIS1 was adopted and used as it was a name that was originally used for the original blockchain https://nemproject.github.io/#introduction and stands for Nem Infrastructure Server and has been associated with the project and ecosystem since early days.

There have been some discussion and suggestions in various groups about alternative names and naming approaches for NIS1 and NEM - including NEMClassic and XEM as well as staying with NEMNIS1, amongst others.

Next steps

We are keen to hear from the community if there is interest in, and any ideas for, a new name approach for NIS1 and NEM. Please share your thoughts, comments and suggestions on this thread over the next 2 weeks.

At that point we would then consolidate the options or candidates into a short list, which would be shared in a further post and, if there is a clear need, we would then put them to a binding POI community vote, as with other community based decisions.

Once the final decision is made, we will then work through the application of the new name and approach across all touchpoints.

Outline Process;

Ideas generation - next 2 weeks

Consolidation post confirming candidates for vote

POI Vote week 3 & 4 (if needed)

10 Likes
#2

NEM classic is in my eyes a devaluation of NIS1 and completely unacceptable. Just because other projects have gone this way, we don’t have to do the same.

8 Likes
#3

First things first: great initiative to include community in this discussion.

I second @garm in that NEMClassic should not become a choice in the resulting POI vote. This “Classic” suffix has way too much negative connotation in blockchain industry. It is a shame, but it is what it is ; and naming a project “the Classic one” is often interpreted as the failed one, which is not correct to say about NIS.

I, personally, never put a 1 after NIS ^^ just as an added thought on top of my head.

Interested in seeing what the community suggestions will be here ;

One question specific to you @DanJonBob would be: In case of a rename ; would we also need / want to discuss a rebrand initiative? Or would this result only in a rename?

5 Likes
#4

I think this question should come up after all the dust settles with Symbol.

People are just frustrated & reacting to XYM’s somewhat stagnant price in light of XEM keeping up. No clear leader, when it should be Symbol.

I think 6 months down the road, a rename/rebrand of NIS1 would be best.

Agree with the others, anything with Classic gives the impression of a contentious hardfork knowing the history of ETH.

3 Likes
#6

There is already too much confusion because of the difference in name between the blockchain and the coin, changing name means creating even more confusion especially if exchanges, CMC, Coingecko don’t switch name all together at the same time.

I’m for leaving things just the way they are.

4 Likes
#7

There is no need to change the names of NEM and NIS1.

Even Symbol is still unknown, and it’s hard to understand why we would do without our own branding achievements so far.

Also, NIS is the correct name; NIS1 is what the community called it to distinguish it from catapult, which was not yet named.

I think there are other things to be done.

18 Likes
#8

IMO symbol was terrible for choice as it should be NEM symbol and NEM original or something like that.

2 Likes
#9

I propose to “freeze” all the brand names for now due to the following reasons:

  • Why the change?: Without understandable strategy/roadmap/principle/consistency for the long run, it is hard to assess even why the change is needed, or what kind of effect/expectation NEM Group is seeking by the change?
  • Why now?: There seems to be no rationale to change the brand names in this timing. Symbol launch has already been done. Timing was missed.
  • Be simple. Public audience don’t care the detail: There is enough confusion in public on the relationship between NEM/XEM/NIS/NIS1/Symbol/XYM.
  • Solidify Symbol (XYM) brand first!: Given the situation that XYM has not been listed on any of the major exchanges after the launch, nor substantial use cases identified (e.g. marketplace/shopping where XYM is usable, NFT, DeFi or even CBDC), it is apparent that XYM is late in the game already. We should prioritize the efforts on Symbol (and XYM) first to solidify the brand and proliferate it.
11 Likes
#10

Cannot see any priority to lookback the past topic, and rename. 1st priority we want is just to focus on XYM promotion for raising XYM value. Everything else should be the next step.

Bland name is no worth if XYM becomes junks.

2 Likes
#11

Correct. NEM group should put huge effort to grow SYMBOL brand.

The launch was total disaster and after one month we have zero awaraness in crypto world.

2 Likes
#12

No Classic, too much connotation with ETH CLASSIC (failing) but a more positive approach would be an association with ETH 2.0

Symbol might need a tiny NEM 2.0 above or below its name!

2 Likes
#13

何のためにやるのでしょうか？
NEM NIS共に今まで築いてきたブランディングです。それをゼロにし、新たに築く理由があるのでしょうか？
ある場合、明確な戦略を提示していただきたいです。
また、Symbol をオンボードさせるのが先ではないでしょうか？

6 Likes
#14

Is there nothing else to do?
No change is necessary.

You guys are just slow workers, and using extra resources will only cause more unnecessary confusion.

1 Like
#15

今これを変える必要がありますか？
混乱するだけだと思いますが！

5 Likes
#16

I would be very interested to hear if there are any significant advantages to changing the name.
I can’t see any reason other than marketing, at least to me.
Marketing is important, but I think Symbol should be the priority.

3 Likes
#17

Well I think it is not a good idea to rename NEM and XEM. Because we already launched Symbol and XYM. So now focus should be 100% on Symbol awareness, marketing, building and left NEM as old brand behind us. You/we have had 6 years chance to build something interesting on NEM…but about 5 years ago it was clear that technological solution of NEM was not enough and we need something better, which is now launched and called Symbol. So that message should be clear to audience, that Symbol and XYM is that interesting part. Not NEM and XEM. XEM does not have any good use case and all hope is towards Symbol and XYM.

3 Likes
#18

We should push the Symbol name hard to get it widely known and have everybody know it is the superior chain vs NIS/XEM.
I would drop the NEM name for the XEM chain and even fade out the NEM name altogether, let Symbol become a brand of its own. You could rename NEM (XEM) to NIS (XEM) for example, or to something better

  • NIS (XEM)

  • Symbol (XYM)

If we get a new name for XEM it should be something with EM in it. Just like YM from XYM is in Symbol. ZEMMO or something better

2 Likes
#19

I don’t think it’s necessary to change the name. Why did you decide to change it? If you change it, you’ll get confused! The opposite

3 Likes
#20

So far many people seem to be opposed to this proposal. We should not underestimate the fact that a name that has been used for a long time has weight.

It’s a waste of time to make such unimportant suggestions. Once again, we should focus all our efforts on Symbol for now, and think about extending the life of NIS only after that :unamused:

Shouldn’t we face the reality that the later coins are overtaking us in terms of buzz and market share?

7 Likes
#21

I totally agree. This is complete waste of time is XYM/Symbol get noticed soon and gather some hype/buzz.

2 Likes