Why?
What are your intentions?
Explain
Why not?
Explain.
Then it should be easy to explain.
Your attitude irritates me, so I won’t answer.
The problem started when they named it Symbol. If you are a professional, you should realize that.
Is this not a question that should have been answered before something like Symbol from NEM would be given birth? I mean, “from NEM”, is purely intentional so you cannot say here, that it is actually a “misrepresentation” in and by itself … this makes absolutely no sense.
–
Historically, NIS evolved into NEM … NIS, in fact, has “NEM” in it, too. NEM Infrastructure Server, for some at least. And NCC, also… NEM Community Client|NIS Community Client… this is back many years and I really don’t think anyone would actually want to go back to “NIS” naming.
The XYM versus XEM problem, is that not what is really the cause of this whole confusion? 1) they are pronounced very similar ; and 2) they read exactly the same …
Also, nem:xem, did have both in its name [on-chain], whilst symbol:xym comes in as “without NEM” is its name, on-chain.
Why do people call NIS “NEM” ? Because NEM is what was organically built around said [infrastructure] server, namely the NEM ecosystem.
Catapult … back 3, 4 years from now, was NEM’s next big thing, but branding pivoted for a thing from NEM. So yes, there is confusion in how to talk about Symbol, in how Symbol fits in NEM ecosystem “discussions”… and you want my personal opinion, it is a big mess to have “from NEM” in the name, specially for open source software where you expect community to build and mention the tech more often than not ; is it that we want everyone to break trademarks because they don’t use the name correctly?
–
- If we encourage 3rd parties to change listings from “NEM” to NIS1, and the change confuses people, why not adopt better branding at the same time?
Why and whom would want to do that, really? NEM is installed in japan, there is books about NEM, etc. Coinmarketcap is really a shitty place to get your input tbh.
Hello. Hello.
It is not cool to simply assume that someone else’s opinion is “5 minutes”
I understand that NIS1 is a provisional name.
However, the question is why now is the time to start the discussion.
We should have started thinking about it two years ago and discussed it a year ago.
All your other arguments are great! They are exactly what I was looking for. But this one is not so great, as CMC was used as a single example of hundreds of places that demonstrate NEM = XEM, or XEM = “The NEM coin.”
I’ll definitely think more on the other points you’ve made.
Did you just assume it was more than an analogy? 
Discussing branding / name changes is very important.
The original post suggested 2 weeks for discussion, and we’re already halfway through that!
If the soup isn’t cooking, increase the heat.
I’m still not 100% sure of my own opinion. I hope more will step up and give their input - especially if they explain how & why they reached their conclusions.
What does NEM mean to you?
For you, how does Symbol fit into the NEM branding schema?
How do you explain NEM & Symbol to others?
There is no need to change the name. Changing it will cause confusion and damage the overall image. I also disagree with the use of the word “classic”.
I do agree this should have been thought about at length long ago and then we wouldn’t be in this situation. It was a really serious oversight but what’s done is done.
My problem with rebranding is that you have a recognisable product already. People don’t like change in general (see other comments in the thread). If we change the name overnight there will be a bunch of people scratching their heads not knowing what e.g. “Gemesis” is. If you change other things like the font, colours and logo as in your example this only makes the problem worse.
I’m have no experience in branding/marketing etc as probably most of us don’t (if anyone does it would be great to get some informed feedback!). Just seems to me that it would be a hugely expensive and time consuming process that would deflect attention away from what people should be focussing on which is expanding the reach of Symbol and getting this name and the story behind the project known.
I was thinking of product rebrands I remember. This is showing my age and it will be obvious that I’m from the UK and I didn’t have the best diet as a kid. Two that immediately sprang to mind we’re Marathon which was was renamed to Snickers and Opal Fruits to Starburst. Both had huge TV and print marketing campaigns to tell everyone this was happening in advance. How would we advertise this? If we do have that kind of marketing reach in the crypto community then why the hell are we not using it to sell Symbol? If we did this maybe some of the confusion would be resolved anyway. If we don’t advertise then people will be more confused. We then also run the risk of people thinking that “Gemesis” is the new tech as it came after Symbol.
Back to the chocolate… Secondly, they both kept the same packaging, font, colours etc on the wrapper. It was a name change only and even if you hadn’t seen the ads you could probably guess that a Snickers bar was the same as a Marathon. If we change everything then there is nothing that links the new name to the brand and this could potentially be damaging.
Just as in our case, there were a lot of people that didn’t like the name change and thought it wasn’t necessary etc but this lessened over time. It still took months/years before the new names really settled in though and I guarantee that people will still call Gemesis (or whatever the new name might be) NEM for a long time yet if the name changed today.
These probably aren’t great examples but they are the just first thing that came to mind. I do see your point about confusion but it seems easier to really up the exposure of Symbol and hammer it in to the wider crypto community that it is a new product from NEM and it is great. If we spend time rebranding NIS1 then we miss out on this small window of opportunity to promote Symbol whilst it is still new. Seems that focussing on renaming NIS1 is moving backwards when we should be moving forwards.
My opinion is:
Historically, NEM is NIS1 and NIS1 is NEM.
Changing it makes very serious confusion.
Symbol is new brand. It should create it’s own history
I’m okay with below.
NIS1 is NEM.
Symbol is Symbol.
In my understanding, Symbol and NEM(NIS1) are indepnedent from each other even if Symbol was born from NEM(NIS1).
When you explain NIS1 as NEM and explain Symbol as Symbol, I don’t think there is any confusion.
That’s my opinion. Sorry if my understanding is wrong.
If NEM is NIS1, What is NEM Group, NEM Ventures, NEM Software?
Should they rebrand to “NEM & Symbol Group”, “NEM & Symbol Ventures”, etc?
Keeping the blockchain name as “NEM” and the Ecosystem name as “NEM” detracts from the connectivity people have between NEM and Symbol.
How about community? Do we split the community into NEM & Symbol communities?
I think It’s okay NEM Group will manage NEM and Symbol both brands.
Group names no need to be the same with its product.
Drop the name “NIS1”.
After that, NEM group can manage NEM and Symbol both brands.
Don’t be afraid of loosing the connectivity between NEM and Symbol.
If they have connectivity, they will never lose it.
About community:
people who love NEM also love Symbol. so, Nembers will never be split.
Please calm down. it’s nothing but my opinion.
I agree with the idea to drop “NIS1”. It was a naming & marketing mishap. Not sure who came up with it.
I 100% agree. Something must be done. How anyone can link XYM from CMC to NEM Ecosystem without further search??
No need to change.
If it needs to be changed, it means that the naming of the symbol was a failure.
There is no need to change the name. Because the newly born “Symbol” means a symbol, it’s clear that everyone should focus on it. Don’t go against the name. What should be dynamic now is the newly born “Symbol”.
It’s the same as no parent changing the name of their child later. Don’t underestimate existing names.
nem2
and we can drop nis1 again
it was to prevent even more confusion. symbol should somehow be associated with nem that was important to the community. it was decided that the name nem should be used as an umbrella term. so nem blockchain needed a new name more or less. i found this was a more viable way the real problem was symbol branding overall.
Of all the replies in this thread this is the best one that clearly states the issue at the moment.
And it also gives one of the best solutions as well.
Basically NEM/XEM chain is now seen as the main chain and Symbol as the less important side chain. And the easiest way out of this is to rebrand the XEM chain.
今名前を変える事は
大きなデメリットがあります。
進行中のプロジェクト全体に名前変更という
時間を奪う作業。
多くの人はプロジェクトが破綻したと感じるでしょう
知名度も今以上に無くなる
これまでにいくつもの困難を乗り越えて来た
ものを一瞬で
無にします。
無価値からまた始めるのですか？
名前を変えたら
また、
名前を変えた経緯と理由をいちいち説明していかなくてはならない面倒くささと信用回復にも膨大な時間を
費やすことになるでしょう。
その時間を担保できますか？
もし名前を変えるなら
プロジェクトをスタートする前で
今では無い。
The only one having trouble with the name is NGL.
The community is already fragmented.
When the holders are different, the community is divided.
There is only affinity.This is a fact.
Many people have already sold their XEMs. They will now form a community of Symbols instead of NEM.
If it’s confusing, just call Symbol NEM2Symbol.
NGL is the only one having trouble with the name.