The reports we’ve been getting about the Symbol name and brand have been mostly positive. If this wasn’t the case, we’d be saying that here of course. But the admins all realise the same thing, and we all work intensively with the community every single day, on the front line, answering sometimes hundreds of questions.
5 Likes
It’s not about the name / brand “Symbol” but about marketing. And if I am unable to market a second successful blockchain based on one successful blockchain, then I’ve done something wrong.
Logo or not …
2 Likes
Yes, Symbol crypto marketing needs to be looked at again, for sure (but not the brand). I think we agree here. Part of the reason is we don’t have clarity between the ecosystem (NEM) and the blockchains (only NIS1 has the NEM brand). The other (bigger) reason why Symbol crypto marketing has not taken off is because the approach needs to be improved, a process which is underway now. Crypto works on hype, exchange listings, and not much else. That is understood.
7 Likes
This is absolutely false. Anyone can read through and see that there are not “many new admins” comments here, but there are multiple comments by long timers.
Additionally, I can vouch for all the new admins. They have been very fast learners to understand NIS1 and Symbol. We discuss the tech, use cases, differences, competitive analysis, etc DAILY!
I was honored that they even combed through all my answers to questions over the years to create their own “cheat sheet”
Our telegram admins are 
edit/
To my knowledge, any mistaken comment by an admin or community member has been corrected. A goal of admins is 100% engagement with united messaging.
If any you find any mistakes anywhere, please correct them at the source.
Every human occasionally makes mistakes.
/edit
Now, back to the topic at hand:
The goal is to rethink branding to allow for additional products within the NEM brand. Whether it was intended to, or not, we have a product sharing the same exact brand identity as the NEM Ecosystem / parent organization.
We have a second product that is deserving of some of that brand recognition.
We may have additional products / applications coming in the future.
3 Likes
In the short term, this may be right(DOGE). But I am sure we all want more here.
The basis for long term success is not hype, but what NIS and Symbol can provide as Blockchain, for every user.
In the end, it is certainly good if everything is discussed openly here. So I give you a like.
Yes, of course. We actually already have the substance. The news is relentlessly good about partnerships, integrations, people harvesting, spinning up nodes, hackathon winners, it’s all on t.me/newsonnem or twitter.com/nemofficial. We are just missing the crypto hype element. You could call it a contra-DOGE perhaps. We just need both types of marketing.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s what the community has seen for very many years. Sorry …
1 Like
As you say, it’s good to bring it all out in the open so it can be resolved. Many people are new here and fresh to this, but have the energy to help get things resolved.
3 Likes
Sorry if I don’t see that.
NEM Hub looks dead …
No ideas
no initiative
nothing …
1 Like
NEMHub is waiting to be reactivated pending discussions between DAO Maker and NEM Group about the best way forward. We’re waiting for those to be concluded. It may also be a good time to hear points of views from all our communities about how we would like it structured from now on, but that’s a different post. If someone in the community starts a discussion about that, please tag me and I’ll happily answer.
4 Likes
Now I’m a little speechless …
I am not sure that NemHub will take us forward. But well I think it’s better than nothing and that seems to be enough for many.
1 Like
The community is all out pushing anyway, as it should be with a decentralized community. Check Twitter for the #XYM #NEM #Symbol hashtags and you’ll see all the great work being done to explain zero knowledge proofs, Symbol tokenomics, wallet features, songs about harvesting, and a lot more. We’re doing our best in a tricky situation. Once discussions conclude, we’re looking forward to plugging in the NEMHub engine again. But this time with much more community support. There will be a post coming about how best to achieve that in the next few days.
3 Likes
Yep, agree with you here. Still, it’s not entirely clear to me why a decentralized community should wait for something?
2 Likes
And so, I shall be proven wrong - thanks for chiming in @mixmaster.
These are outlined here: Platforms - NEM Ecosystem .
My point is more about that early-on admins do have an historical relation to NIS. They have used it, or still do (running SNs or otherwise active)
It is not easy, certainly, to manage these groups and the effort must be respected but I have seen many things change since Symbol launched. Some good things to fight this overflow of when listing, when optin, etc.
But also some bad things, where the community seems to be hardly split (see JPN comments above), maybe everyone is also still trying to find a correct ground to describe the tech we have, and the new ecosystem setup.
2 Likes
+1 … that´s right …
Well, don’t let anyone say this community doesn’t like controversy! These 05 minutes we to take to read this thread tell much more.
At a time when we were talking about NEM and Catapult, we all thought the second blockchain in the ecosystem would serve to “catapult” the first one and it seemed to be fine. At that moment. Then, when renamed it as Symbol, and it seemed fine too, because of the idea of humanizing the blockchain and bringing it closer to the new economic movement formula as representation.
How comes that we´re discussing whether to change feet because our shoes that don’t fit? Should we change names just because they don´t represent us or because we don´t like them?
I think we must grow up. All of us.
As an ecosystem, NEM continues, philosophically speaking, having the vision of being a new economic movement, and it has two chains, NEM and Symbol. It’s a mix-up, of course it does, but that´s where we show up our features. That´s where we have to go out there and tell people why that name is what and how it is.
We are NEM and we have two blockchains, NIS1 and Symbol. If we are to rename any, we should rename NIS1 and give it the sense of decentralization, digitization and tokenization that this ecosystem stands for.
10 Likes
Just to come back and provide more feedback ; because this is exactly what I mean - has there ever been even one single ZKP using Symbol or NEM? Likely not - Why? Because it’s a feature that is planned to be worked on.
I can go and create my bullshit ZKP, manually, but there is 0 interface for users to create ZKPs, to prove and to verify, using Symbol - so why would we feature ZKP as one of the things introduced by Symbol now?
This is exactly alongside what I am saying ; people are talking about stuff that is completely unrelated to both projects. Branding has come in like a storm changing the way people talk and describe NEM and Symbol in these groups. And maybe that’s where the confusion starts, is my point.
We now have XYM and XEM, but the community did not vote on that. As mentioned by early japan contributors, mostly the community did not have another choice than to either 1) delay the launch or 2) agree to the name(s).
We now have two coins with very similarly pronounced names ^^ I think we should learn to live with that and look into the future versus trying to fix something that would even more split the community as it seems.
Why would NIS and Symbol need to be completely taken apart, they are siblings and they even share a common user base. Maybe their target audience diverged with time, but still, the people that were in NEM before, are now in Symbol, mostly.
1 Like
Hi, I agree with your points about the way people talk and describe NEM and Symbol in these groups. That can always be improved, directed in other ways. Many in the community are already starting different types of conversations - we did a great series of tweets on the wallets recently on Twitter. We’d also be grateful if you could direct us to where you are involved in conversations so the rest of the community can engage there too. We support each other out there, and if you have better subjects to talk about we’ll join you in that.
Yes, this is an attempt by the community to explain what is coming. ZKPs are stated in the roadmap and a lot of people in the community don’t understand why this is an exciting development coming our way. That’s the point there - to explain arcane concepts to people new to blockchain. It doesn’t represent the sum of our efforts. The community is covering lots of different topics on Twitter.
Regarding XEM and XYM, those names aren’t part of this branding discussion, as far as I can see. Regarding your point about NIS and Symbol “being completely taken apart”, nobody is suggesting that.
4 Likes
Understood. I like to read about community pushed initiatives 
ZKPs are a very promising field in blockchain space and my point is not about downvoting their impact when ready - and so, I don’t think it is wrong to talk about ZKP, as now I know why you would do that in the context of Symbol.
–
Actually, the community didn’t use to have many initiatives pushed like you are doing, so this is overall great to hear about.
I don’t think I would have anything near to a solution to the rename of NIS ; I have to agree that I tend to call it either NEM or XEM, myself … And I like it.
As to when I introduce Symbol, I usually am going to mention the “from NEM”… and actually often I also hint to the fact that many experiences from the previous NEM project, influenced the newer Catapult/Symbol project.
Another potential solution in describing these is that catapult is an engine, that drives - currently only a few - multiple blockchain networks. Symbol is the first of those ; will always be the first and most linked to NEM because of how optin worked.
Catapult clearly stood out as NEM 2.0 during some time, there is many packages on github still carrying the nem2-* package naming (most outdated, though). And so, Symbol comes in as the first product that uses the catapult engine.
But when the optin was designed, it was made clear that both chains will be running alongside each other after launch. So the nem2-* lost a little bit of its meaning … but did all the experiences learned with NEM also lose their meaning ? I don’t think so 
Symbol is next generation NEM, and it is, really, that!
- Multisig on Symbol is a bit different in terms of chain footprint, but interactions are very similar.
- Mosaics on Symbol are a bit different in terms of chain footprint, but interactions are very similar.
and I can do that with namespaces, too. So, yes, Symbol is an incarnation of NEM 2.0, but the name NEM2 did not catch up nicely back then, because catapult was not ready ; Following this train of thoughts, I think I would vote for XEM being branded “NEM”, Symbol kept as is but often described as NEM2.
</braindump>
1 Like