It is very important to recognize that
we are targeting two different markets simultaneously and thus we will need two names:
- Business market: Block chain network for block chain 2.0 features such as different assets, contracts, and programmable block chain. Requires a logically appealing name for the network.
- Consumer market: Internet currency market, and especially with a focus on micro-transactions and social networking markets. Requires subliminally appealing name for the currency unit(s).
Shazam is the name of a well-known music company so you can forget about that.
I and almost everybody I know in Asia has never heard of that music app. So if global markets are paramount, then their brand recognition may not be the paramount consideration. I don't think they can assert a global trademark on block chain or online currency since there is a clear distinction of products. They apparently have been unable to stop others from using the name in other contexts, although (and I haven't verified all) the others may have been well established since before that app was created.
However, it is worrisome that shazam.net is an established financial services company. Could use instead shaazam to side-step, but even so this is somewhat risky and the alternative spelling might lead to misspellings and confusion.
Also I think the key realization is that shazam is not ideal for either target market. For the business market it is too cartoonish. For the consumer market, it only naturally connotes the instantaneous aspect (shazam is an instant transformation like magic poof) and with more pizzazz than others we've proposed, but lacking any distinguishing quality for a currency unit. Also it is not very brandable for a currency unit, because it has existing less general meanings such as in Comics cartoons.
It was a good name for a magical, fast proof-of-work algorithm in a niche setting (where I originally applied it to an unpublished proof-of-work hash design), but not for a widely brandable name of a currency unit.
Shazam is apt where some magic is implied. I think we don't want to introduce mysticism, since
the business market wants reliability and the consumer market wants clarity/simplicity.
I haven't voted, but from the list you've got, love is probably the best IMO. It's a juggernaut providing you can transcend it out of the male-orientated nerd soup of the cryptosphere. Tricky to pull-off yet potentially stratospheric.
That is what I was originally thinking. But I have since become more enamored with 'ching' and 'ka-ching' which seem much more naturally fit to a fungible money. Love is damn adstract and is reach to get people to think about fungible money and love being equivalent. After further contemplation, I don't think love is as general as fungible money. Thus we'd be pigeon-holing (subsetting) fungible money. Perhaps "enlightenment" is more general than love.
Please be aware my tentative (subject to change) plan is I will not launch the currency unti here in this forum, to investors nor to cryptonerds. If my plan succeeds, I will be launching it directly to the users (a.k.a. technophobes) via an application they need.
The block chain network name will be targeted to the cryptonerds (a.k.a. technophiles).
Clickz is clearly bad - I suspect nefarious BCT accounts are trying to lead you up the primrose path with that one. You ought to be careful about stuff like that.
As best as I can surmise, 'clickz' works in the mind of those people are trying to conflate some notion of internet advertising marketing with our naming goals. It seems to imply a lack of significant understanding/thought of the points made in the thread, and just a instinctive reaction of those who think of pay-per-click advertising's prevalence on the web and the dominant advertising funded economic model of the web.
Perhaps you're trying to think about the situation too logically. So often programmers get addicted to the logical inertia of their code that they can't help apply it to the issue of aesthetics. This is why programmers and marketers are two different faculties. There are exceptions to the rule, but in general there is a demonstrable division in thought-process that should remain divided.
I wear both hats reasonably well as demonstrated by my past successes in mass markets and on being the sole or lead developer (as well as the janitor, marketer, customer support rep, accountant, tax advisor, etc... I had a lot of energy in youth!).
My thought process ever since I proposed the name 'Sync' for the block chain network and separate names for the currency units, was to acknowledge that I am fully aware of what you are pointing out, and that I knew we needed a logically appealing name for the business target market and a simple, catchy name for the consumer target market. Both markets require aesthetic names, but the aesthetic requirements are different. The business market needs to be simply fit yet not threatening to reliability, logical concerns or needs, and other serious considerations, e.g. IBM = International Business Machines and Microsoft = microcomputer software. The consumer name needs to convey some clear notion that elicits a positive emotional reaction, while also not being confusing (neither in spelling, phonetics, competing consumer brands and popular trends, ease of popularly catching on and being widely identified, etc).
The majority of end-consumers tend not to really give any thought or care at all to the etymology or logic of a branding concept. Apple Computers for example: It's not even allegorical - completely abstract. Amazon, GoDaddy, the US Dollar. What does any of this crap actually mean? Not much.
Apple Computer, GoDaddy and Amazon are targeting a consumer market. Their business respect came from their achievements in the consumer markets. But they weren't initially targeting a business market orthogonal to their consumer market offerings.
In general, people gravitate (mostly subconciously) toward simple aesthetics. The
sound of a certain combination of phonetics and/or syllables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_poetry. The
look of a certain shape, symbol, angle or parallel. Simple impressions with abstract personalities.
Yeah observe the impact on reader's impression after they see my mockup of 'Sync' with gears on the 'nc'. People need to see, hear, or sense the aesthetics.
Leave the logic and the reason for the code itself.
Well for targeting a business market, I observe that if the name has some logical relevance then it has more convincing and powerful effect. Businesses hate risky choices.
Also if you're going to do it properly
get the symbol sorted out first. Assuming the cryptocurrency is to function like any other currency, the symbol is hands down the most important constant to get right. The
symbol is the greatest memetic representative of the finished product.
Just think about about the universality of the dollar symbol, the euro symbol, the yen symbol, the bitcoin symbol. Simple colorless shapes.
So if you're starting with a blank canvas where anything is possible, choose a symbol (for it's abstract aesthetic beauty) and
work backwards. Use the symbol as the starting point, and
then come up with a name that best represents it.
http://www.copypastecharacter.com/all-charactersRemember that you're trying to spawn a currency, not a product or a piece of software.
Since I think I am choosing the currency units 'ka-ching', 'ching' and 'chan' (from largest to smallest), then the currency symbol is the well known cents symbol ¢ for 'ching' and 'ka-ching' layer a reversed ʞ where the vertical line remains in the same place as for the ¢ and the tips on the > extend out like gear teeth (to match the sync logo concept of gears on the c). For 'chan' I am thinking the h is layered on top where the vertical line remains in the same place as for the ¢.
ching
CHiNG/
noun
an abrupt high-pitched ringing sound, typically one made by a cash register.
ka-ching
kəˈCHiNG/
noun
used to represent the sound of a cash register, especially with reference to making money.
Ch'an (traditional Chinese: 禪; simplified Chinese: 禅, abbr. of Chinese: 禪那; pinyin: chánnà), from Sanskrit dhyāna, meaning "meditation" or "meditative state")
noun, Chinese.
1.
Zen (enlightenment)
Thus:
| ka-ching | ching | chan |
| ka-ching | | = 1000 ching | = 1 million chan |
| ching | = milli-ka-ching | | = 1000 chan |
| chan | = micro-ka-ching | = milli-ching | |
Thus if ka-ching (kiloching) are $1 or less in value, then ching are preferred for expressing whole numbers for values between a tenth of a cent up to a few dollars at most. And chans (or milliching) are for micro-transactions with whole numbers for values between 1/10,000 of a cent up to a few cents at most. To express value smaller than chan, then a number with a decimal point can be used, else 'millichan'.
The problem is as the value for the currency rises, the exchange value of ka-ching will not stay within the ideal range between $1 - $10, thus the relevant association of value brackets will change over time until the exchange value stabilizes.
I have thought perhaps we can put in the block chain what the value of a 'ka-ching' is so that the consensus network keeps within that desired range of $1 - $10, i.e. when it falls below a dollar, then a 'ka-ching' is revalued to 10 times greater and vice versa. This would require that websites use some scripting for displaying price quotes so their displays update as the block chain does. This has trade-offs.
Note please realize that users who think of only the currency unit, will be able to find the GUI clients via the appropriate Google search and end up at:
ka-ching.cash
ching.cash
chan.cash
That currency unit is just one asset on the Sync consensus network. Thus it is an orthogonal product to Sync.
And those business users searching for Sync, would end up at:
Sync.run
Edit: a quoted discussion explaining why the currency unit asset and target market is distinct from the block chain 2.0 functionality:
I would go for Ethereum before Dash.
Well, Ethereum got a nice boost when they got endorsement from Microsoft but its not focussing
on all the digital properties of money (transaction speed, transaction privacy, fungibility, decentralised voting and budget)
like Dash is doing.
Instead it seems to be more of a platform for developers where others can create applications that they can then run on top of it.
So i consider Dash and Ethereum two totally different projects and both have space to grow in their own niche.
edit : with perhaps Ethereum operating in a much bigger niche than Dash...
I agree there is really not a valid comparison there. Dash and Bitcoin are somewhat a valid comparison as both are attempting to be primarily payment systems, not smart contract platforms. They differ somewhat in how they approach things like privacy, fast payments, etc. but the goals are at least similar.
).
