Just keep NEM (XEM), less confusion. Don’t create more issue when we have more serious challenge in front of us.
Symbol by itself is fine.
NEM and Symbol’s main problem is not NIS or XEM, NEM or Symbol.
2 Likes
It’s been 1 year and half that Symbol has been announced (I think it was announced on January 2020)
So it’s been almost 2 years and nobody thought like "It can be very confusing for Symbol that our logo (The NEM logo that we can see everywhere, like social media and even on this forum) is the same than the XEM logo (So people think that NEM = XEM and wont understand what Symbol is) " ???
I mean, there are people paid for more than a year to do the marketing of NEM and they dont even understand that it is a problem ???
Can you explain me ?
1 Like
I said the problem is marketing😀
: I’m a beginner in cryptocurrencies but not in marketing 
I am inclined to agree with the critisisms aimed at NEMs marketing department.
Why on earth the name SYMBOL?
Surely a unique name (like NEM) should have been chosen instead - Ethereum/Cardano/Litecoin etc.
Instead, Symbol, a frequently used english word is selected.
Google ‘symbol’ and we all know this won’t display anything crypto.
Bad decision making imo.
However, this far in, I am not sure how useful/damaging changing names now would be?
I guess Ripple and Nano did this - and seemed to benefit?
Honestly if the people in charge think re-naming Symbol would get more attention/clarity/higher profile, then they should cut their losses and go for it.
If it is too late, then we need to move on.
Some people say, “Give the customers what they want.” But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, “If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’” People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.
Steve Jobs 
let me refresh everyone’s memory on how this came about. it’s also helpful to just search the forum under catapult branding. I want to avoid wasting any more time. This conversation has already been had, we were only allowed to vote on ticker. Parts of the current leadership were already there then.
2 Likes
The marketing team or the person in charge is already completely changed ? the confusion is because of the failure of markting of “symbol”.
NEM Core group is almost non-existent, none of them are known in Blockchain/Cryptocurrency industry. Having so much issue, but we have not seen any statement from NEM Core group. Kristy should be given bigger role, and everyone else should be out. (The Telegram group moderator have been doing a great job)
EDIT: Want to add Core Devs are great, and Devs are great, Telegram moderators are great, Kristy is great. But everyone else from the business, marketing side are almost non-existent at all. Big fail. and now We want NIS1 back, and confuse people out of Symbol?
I respect you but just have no idea what you’re talking about, Nem Core is anonymous of course they are unknown. I expect only reasonable decisions from this direction no influencer measures on twitter. The problem here is that every few months things are decided that are disliked by parts of the community and then prove to be the problem we identified it as. In this case, most were for nem and nem2 and what came out we all know.
Unfortunately, parts of the community can be flattered and taken by the official side, which leads to divisions.
-What is the plan for marketing, roadmap, goals etc.?
-Telegram is a dying medium in Crypto.
-The CTO should not have more tasks, she should focus on her main function. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket again.
The longer everything stays there and becomes less transparent, the more people we will lose, and most of them will be replaced by small time “investors” who don’t really have a long term interest in the project.
We don’t want NIS1 to be forgotten and we want everything to be released under the Nem brand. When Symbol was decided, the official side wanted to forget NIS and make a complete rebrand to distance themselves from it as much as possible. That’s why it was subsequently introduced “from Nem” after we demanded it.
I refer NEM group to NEM core group, they are not anonymous. Only Kristy from NEM group is actively engage with crypto community (not just NEM).
NIS1, or NEM or Symbol isn’t that important now. We should continue with what we have now, instead of changing. Bigger problem is that now we have 2 great but zombie chains, having problem to attract talents to build on them, which is the main responsibility of NEM group, not NEM core dev who has been very awesome.
2 Likes
I guessed this was about NGL, every now and then it gets confusing with NEM Group, NEM Core and NEM Core Devs now belonging to NGL. Thanks again for the explanation.
The premise
- The name NEM has no brand value.
- NEM and Symbol blockchains are not compatible.
- The NEM and Symbol community is divided.
We need to accept this reality.
4 Likes
How about this: just rename the NEM parent company to Symbol. Keep the NEM/XEM chain as it is and just rename everything as a parent company to Symbol with the Symbol/XYM chain.
That would put the emphasis on the Symbol chain.
2 Likes
We will end up pulling down both “NIS1” and Symbol, for all these confusion.
Perhaps we need to look at it the way Organic Chemists do. When Chemists speak of a compound, they will always use the generic name. The chemical name is hardly ever used. The brand name is all about presenting a public face and marketing.
I think of NIS1 as the chemistry and magic of chemistry behind the magic of crypto. And, most of us don’t need to know the process or the math that got us here.
That is why I keep presenting it this way: NEM = XEM + XYM
- Chemical Name: NIS1
- Generic Name: XEM
- Brand Name: NEM
agree with all these, aside that NEM brand is not valueless, but I think we are trying to hard to tie XEM and XYM together. For now, there is no relation, no inter-connection between XEM and XYM, except both are build by the same developers.
NEM/XEM should be it is what it is, NEM group need to update the libraries/dependencies to close those vulnerabilities, and continue to be maintained and driven by community interest. We have limited resource, and should focus on XYM, which has been developed for the past 3 years.
1 Like
NEM had to explain since day 1 that SYMBOL is the evolution of XEM (And the future of NEM).
I dont know why you had to say that “they are differents but both usefull etc…”
NO, SYMBOL is the EVOLUTION of XEM. There is a new token only cause it was impossible to update XEM but it was born to be better. Like ETH2.0.
When we were still speaking about catapult, the team was saying that “Catapult will be faster and better than the current XEM”, witch is normal.
When Ethereum release ETH 2.0 (A great name for an update btw), they will explain that ETH2.0 is now the main token of Ethereum and they will only focus on it.
But not you. You are still sharing videos saying that the future of XEM is as bright as the future of XYM etc…
Its like if Sony release the new playstation and say “The current PS5 is as good as the new PS6, you can choose to buy the one you like :)”
How to you want people to understand anything ? Even for the tokens they dont understand witch one is the best one (in term of technology).
To sum-up:
- Everybody outside NEM community think that NEM = XEM (Even some exchanges and Coinmarketcap say NEM instead of XEM lol)
- You make it even more confuse by having the XEM logo everywhere (So it looks even more that XEM = NEM)
- You create a new token named Symbol and nobody understand that it is link to NEM (You could have called it XEM2 or something like this but no :))
- You spam on all social media that “'XEM is as much important as XYM” instead of pushing for XYM (Yes, XYM is Faster, newer and better than XEM. Thats what a evolution has to be.)
- And now you dont understand why nobody outside of the NEM community knows Symbol
All the people in the marketing team of NEM should be fired instantly. They dont understant their job.
I give a few more months to the team to see if they will understand how to promote a new product (witch should be here to replace the old one) but if it keep going like this I think it will be a RIP NEM.
4 Likes
Maybe that is not that bad idea! What if we turned it around and rename parent company to Symbol ecosystem. That will clearly show that Symbol is the flagship product. So if some newcomers will read all that Facebook, Twitter, Telegram posts they will see Symbol everywhere and not as it is now that they see NEM everywhere. And this will be pretty cheap to rebrand it I hope. NEM/XEM will remain as it is on all exchanges so there will not be mess and confusion about it. Symbol/XYM remains as it is right now, but all communication from official parts will be from Symbol ecosystem parent company and social media accounts. What will be the conclusion? Symbol brand wil be everywhere :).
What do you think guys?
1 Like
You are overlooking an very important detail.
You only get ETH2 if you burn your old ETH1.
and:
" The merge | ethereum.org "
"Eventually the current Ethereum mainnet will “merge” with the beacon chain proof-of-stake system.
This will mark the end of proof-of-work for Ethereum, and the full transition to proof-of-stake.
This is planned to preceed the roll out of shard chains.
We formerly referred to this as “the docking.”
Sry. … two important details …
1 Like
Mmmmhhh…to stay with the example.
If I have a good Playstation out there, I won’t destroy it. I will try to develop and improve the Playstation further as long as the market or the competition allows it. She makes enough money to do this.
And for the foreseeable future, because it works safely.
But then I still developed something else, something
also has completely different properties. Should I still call this a Playstation?