The name NEM is very important.
The name NIS1 has a long history.
The name Symbol is becoming more and more popular.
All of them are important.
- NEM NIS1 (XEM)
- NEM Symbol (XYM)
Thank you!
You motivated me to explain the position further!
We have:
NEM Community
NEMbers
NEM Group
NEM Software
NEM Ventures
NEM Team
NEM Blog
NEMHub
NEM Show
NEM Store
NEM Official
etc, etc.
Everything core to Symbol is branded “NEM”
If we also have a blockchain named “NEM” it suggests this is the blockchain that the entire ecosystem is focused on.
Simultaneously, we have third parties referring to NEM as a coin. When news is announced that “NEM team is doing XYZ” - people assume it pertains to “the NEM coin” - Which is XEM.
If we try to tack “NEM” onto “Symbol” in some way, (like NEM2Symbol) it looks silly, undoes much the marketing efforts, and makes things even more confusing.
As long as there is the NEM-branded ecosystem, and a NEM blockchain, all efforts to showcase Symbol as the flagship product will have roadblocks.
As meyns said, “the easiest way out of this is to rebrand the XEM chain”
I agree, it’s a much simpler solution than rebranding the entire Movement.
4 Likes
That’s sophistry.
The NEM community has already been divided.
There are people who belong to both communities, and people who belong to only one of them.
The reason is that they are different platforms.
Normally, the forum should be split as well.
Basically, when NEM launched, NIS stood for NEM Infrastructure Server. That can be seen both in the white paper and the original documentation.
At some point Catapult was being coded, and it was originally designed as a hard fork, meaning NEM would upgrade to the Catapult code and just still be called NEM. So to make it really clear, there was a “1” added to the “NIS” to make it clear that we were talking bout the pre-Catapult version of NEM.
Along came the idea that we should have two chains and add things into Symbol that you couldn’t just add with a hard fork but needed a restart. By that time the “NIS1” name had stuck for a while. But basically “NIS” and “NIS1” now mean the same thing and refer to the same code.
Generally, the community should chose one or the other term and stick with it IMO.
Likewise, this thread is good because it is better if we all agree on some terminology for all of these things and stick to it.
3 Likes
I don’t like “Gemesis” but I agree with the general idea 100 %.
3 Likes
He pointed out that the name Gemesis was just an example, and there are better names. I kinda like something with ‘GEM’ in it though. Something with ‘ZEM’ should also fit well, as XEM is usually pronounced ‘ZEM’ anyway
And like you said as well, the idea behind it is solid
2 Likes
There should be no numbering between NIS (1) or symbol to show a difference. Only if the respective blockchain receives an upgrade should this be called 2.0 or similar.
This was also the case. But why is it like that? The main reason isn’t the naming problem. This shows that the marketing for Symbol actually didn’t work.
And I don’t mean the label “Symbol”, but the marketing of the chain, with its properties, which is behind it.
I am not really convinced that a name change, whatever it may be, will solve this problem.
Apart from that, the long delays certainly also play a role.
This was a spur of the moment example of something that is a completely different name and branding from NIS1.
Combining “Gem” and “Genesis”
Would be neat to incorporate “Democracy”, or other governance related term, due to POI / Eingentrust++ in NIS1.
The marketing and branding of Symbol is very good.
I actually wasn’t a fan when it was first proposed, but I have not received any negative feedback from anyone outside NEM. I often hear comments like “cool logo” , “It stands out” , “looks professional” , “caught my attention”
We definitely should not change from Symbol now.
The core issue is that when everything is called “NEM”, except Symbol - all marketing efforts have an uphill battle in demonstrating Symbol as the flagship product.
Do we fight this battle forever? Or do something now to differentiate between NIS1 and NIS2?
I think I addressed this pretty well in my previous post: NIS1 & NEM Naming Convention - #107 by leoinker
3 Likes
That’s what I mean. The marketing team was unable to link the symbol chain with NEM.
The mistake I see here in my opinion is to market symbol as a flagship to NIS.
Symbol should rather emphasize its advantages over other blockchains outside the NEM area and not over NIS.
1 Like
This sounds like a suggestion to scrub NEM branding from Symbol.
That creates two primary options:
- Rename the entire ecosystem
- Split the ecosystem in two, creating “Symbol Group” “Symbol Community”, “Symbol Software”, “Symbol Ventures”, etc, etc to operate alongside it’s NEM branded counterparts.
Both of these options are terrible, IMO.
2 Likes
No, it means that the marketing of Symbol as a chain running under the NEM label was not sufficient
4 Likes
Hi, I spend a lot of time working in the global community, mainly on Telegram and Twitter, but I cover all the social media, answering any questions that come up. One thing everyone who has been helping these communities every day has noticed is that there is real confusion among people, especially newcomers, about how NEM, NIS1, and Symbol relate to each other. This is mainly because NEM (the ecosystem) and NIS1 (the blockchain) have the same brand logo. To those of us answering questions every day, this needs some community discussion. Many of us who work with the global community every day want to get this discussed now, but without distracting from the continued push with Symbol. Clarity on this issue would actually boost our marketing efforts for Symbol, not reduce them. So I’d like to see what the wider community think of this, and whether they have noticed this fundamental problem too.
10 Likes
尊敬の念を抱いています。私たちは、あなたが見ているどんな溝も克服するためにここにいます。
3 Likes
I believe the problem lays in the applied solution to community management. The new admins don’t know the difference(s) between NIS and Symbol, and that is playing out badly.
We have seen many new admins in the groups, havent seen a message from a long timer (more than 1 or 2 years in NEM) admin that supports this proposal.
EDIT: I want to add that this is not supposed to be a negative critic about newer admins, as I understand it can read like that. We are a community that must solve such issues together, please accept it as my feedback.
1 Like
Hi, thanks for your feedback. It is really appreciated. Although many of us are
quite new, all of the admins (even the really new ones) understand the technical differences between Symbol and NIS1. These are outlined here: Platforms - NEM Ecosystem. All the mods are aware of this link, which we all use as a reference. However, we are still unsure of the use case differences between Symbol and NIS1 because that still needs to be fleshed out.
Our problem is that when someone hears about NEM for the first time somewhere on social media, they go to an exchange and automatically assume the good news they heard was about NIS1 (not Symbol). They buy XEM - not XYM. This is because the NEM ecosystem and NIS1 have the same logo. That’s the issue and it has nothing to do with admins knowing the difference or not. This is just a description of what we are seeing from new people joining the groups over the past few months.
Here is a link from an experienced admin on his views: NIS1 & NEM Naming Convention - #59 by spizzerb
Please also read the posts by @leoinker who is also a long standing admin.
5 Likes
I am a bit surprised by this. I don’t have the impression that any admin doesn’t know the difference between NIS and Symbol. I would rather say, all the admins are very aware of the situation (2 chains under the NEM Ecosystem), but many notice confusion from the community. Even cmc and coingecko (just 2 examples) mention “NEM (XEM)”, which is understandable since that is how we called it for a long time. But since we have two chains and it was decided to call the first chain NIS1 it would be good if those sites, and exchanges etc. would follow this. But they don’t. This clearly shows imo that it is early enough to find a better name for NIS1, in case we come to the conclusion that this name is not good.
But at least it doesnt make sense to
- have the same name for the ecosystem and for the first chain
- have the same logo for the ecosystem and for the first chain
- have the name “NEM” in the name of the first chain, but not in the second chain
I think @leoinker explained it very well before.
6 Likes
So is it all bad news for NIS1?
We should finally stop portraying NIS as a bad, old blockchain. This will not get Symbol any further.
They are more likely to buy XEM because no major exchange currently supports XYM.
Apart from that, every investor should be old enough to get an idea before making an investment.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is portraying NIS as a bad, old blockchain, as you suggest. The problem is that shared brand logo of NEM (the ecosystem) and NIS1 (the blockchain) is the same and we’re getting reports that people were confused about this and buying the wrong token. I can only pass on the complaints we’re hearing. We certainly don’t want to cause problems where none exist, but this taking up a lot of our time every day to explain to people. That’s why the branding should be clearer. I hope you can see the issue better now.
5 Likes
It’s way too easy for me. It actually shows very clearly that the marketing strategy for Symbol has completely failed.
No matter how you feel about the logo for NEM / XEM.
3 Likes