@quillfiller wrote:
Btw, it was nagging me where I'd seen a logo combining an E with a ∃ in popular use before:
Ah maybe I remembered that subconsciously.
I startəd thinking wə probably don’t want to put the rəvərsə ∃ in thə dApps naməs. Only for thə blockchain and tokən namə. Ovərusə dilutəs thə əffəct.
However, perhaps we should have a dApp named Patrəons (and it must be plural so that we can obtain the patreons.com and redirect it because people can’t easily remember how to type the turned ‘ə’), to emphasize that Patreon isn’t decentralized, sidestep trademark infringement, and because I think ‘patron’ is a great concept for monthly automatically recurring stipends from fans. Perhaps integrate with additional features for content encrypted only for subscribing patrons. Patreon should have been a generalized subscription service for producers to monetize their fans (and it may be morphing into that eventually). Note patron.com is another possible name because it’s apparently also for sale.
| Name | Domains |
|---|---|
| Patreons | (.com/.org ₙₒₜ ᵢₙ ᵤₛₑ, patrəons.app/ |
@quillfiller two months ago wrote:
Of all the name ideas thus far, the ones that stand out for me the most (i.e. unique, memorable, and brandable) are Uncommons and Oodles.
I agree.
Uncommons is still the best if we only apply the name to the knowledge formation dApps.
@johnnyflynn two months ago wrote:
For what it's worth I don't think much of Uncommons (can't put my finger on why) but I reckon Everse is great - best name yet.
I presume that’s because you’re applying the name to the entire project including the token and the ledger? Apparently Uncommons has no meaning for you when applied as the ledger name? When we tried to put everything in one name and before we thought of the idea to use Ǝ for the token and ledger name, then at that juncture Everse was better than Uncommons for a unified name.
Uncommons isn’t appropriate as the project or ledger name. But after months of trying to think of something better, it’s still by far the most brandable and apropos name for the knowledge based dApps such as decentralized curation (aka peeranking) with hypeermedia clones of Wikipedia, Quora Q&A, Medium blogging, and Reddit discussion forums. Why would you not like Uncommons for those dApps?
Uncommons is very professional and eclectic. The meaning is abstractly suited. Will appeal to the serious, intellectual types who will use knowledge formation dApps.
Perhaps Supeerb is the closest competitor in terms of intellectual target demographics branding, but it’s very difficult to pronounce and the direct and abstract meanings aren’t as good:
| Name | Direct Connotation | Deeper Abstract Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Hypeermedia | hypermedia | Peered hypermedia. |
| Peerfect(o) | perfection | Peers perfecting. |
| Supeerb | excellence | Superb peers or an excellent peered result. |
| Uncommons | eclectic | Not forced to be in common (same) for all. Cornucopia-of-the-commons instead of tragedy-of-the-commons. |
Uncommons (plural) not ‘uncommon’ (singular). The commons is a shared resource. Thus the antithesis uncommons resists the tragedy-of-the-commons (aka comedy-of-the-commons). An example of said tragedy is a shared pasture with no single owner. All with access overgraze it because nobody has the stewardship nor economic incentive to not freeload and properly manage it, i.e. everyone is competing to take as much as they can from the shared resource. The common land degrades. Another example of said tragedy is democracy and exhibit the USA’s $22 trillion national debt and $123 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities (which will skyrocket as interest rates and stagflation rise over this decade). Everyone wants to extract-the-most from the commons thus there's no stewardship. A commons has been compared to the analogy of a trough that animals fight over. Tangentially I recently saw an astute and humorous slogan (presumably referring to Syria), “Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.”
So on the Uncommons site (dApp) I envision, the users aren’t confined to sharing a one-size-fits-all resource. For example, each cyclopedic term for a decentralized curation variant Wikipedia replacement would be allowed to fork into a tree of pages with readers seeing those ranked highest by the decentralized curation (i.e. different readers might see different pages for the same cyclopedia term because of different selection of curators via the like-minded coteries algorithm). Wikipedia forces one-size-fits-all and thus they need to enforce a centralized set of editors who make the curation (i.e. censorship) decisions. This is why many pages on Wikipedia are alleged to have “incorrect” or “incomplete” information. Thus despite its great utility and success, Wikipedia is also a tragedy-of-the-commons.
I do not expect users to think of all that when they like the name Uncommons.
It’s sufficient if they think of eclectic and/or the (degrees-of-) freedom of not everything shared and tied together in common— i.e. not all our shoe-laces-tied-together.
Although disappointing, I’m not overly concerned that uncommons.com was recently sold and is now in use. The domains uncommons.net and uncommons.org are probably obtainable at the right price. Wikipedia redirects wikipedia.com to wikipedia.org but it was originally transposed when they were planning to make a profit by running ads. We already control the uncommons.app and uncommons.us domains. The uncommons.com site is about a work and living space village in Las Vegas so an intelligent user seeking our site would realize they’re in the wrong place. If we succeed, the popularity of our site will exceed that village by orders-of-magnitude, so in theory we could negotiate a purchase or a conspicuous forwarding link. I reserved uncommons.space for a possible domain they might swap with us for their uncommons.com at the right price.
@johnnyflynn two months ago wrote:
Etonomy is great. Surpassing Everse for me. Economy and Autonomy; two powerful and relevant concepts in the crypto space easily recognisable in the one palatable name - bravo (IMHO)
In addition to the previous discussion of the reasons Etonomy was rejected, there’s also extant altcoin projects with similar naming concept: Iconomi and Tokenomy. Also there’s the Blockonomi publication.
I want a naming concept that is ours. That we invented which is rather unique. For the knowledge formation dApps, then Uncommons seems to be our unique concept. In my opinion, even the current “squatter” on uncommons.com is a waste of the wider potential of the plural form of the name. For the ledger project and token, the turned ∃ seems to be very unique.
P.S. there’s a reason I put so much effort into the marketing conceptualization:
But now, I realize: It doesn’t matter whose “fault” it is; we hit a peak in November 2014 and stalled. A lot of creators absolutely loved us, but there weren’t enough of them who needed our specific product offering. Product-market fit is great, but we needed to find a new, larger
fit[market] to justify raising more money (and then do it again and again, until acquisition or IPO).
It doesn’t matter how amazing your product is, or how fast you ship features. The market you’re in will determine most of your growth. For better or worse, Gumroad grew at roughly the same rate almost every month because that’s how quickly the market determined we would grow.