General Question About Naming Wrapped Assets

Hello,

My question involves the reasoning behind using “ren” in front of wrapped assets like renBTC, renDoge, or renFil over using a simple “r” in distinguishing wrapped assets (rBTC,rDoge ,rFil)

I am sure there are valid logical reasons for this and I was curious if any developers might have thoughts on this?

I notice that with “Wrapped Bitcoin” they use a simple “W”, for their WBTC. Also the upcoming “Flare Network” is going to use the letter “f” for wrapped assets like fXRP, fDOGE or fLTC.

I feel like us being early movers in the wrapping asset space, could really benefit from us being the first in establishing the letter “r” for the Ren Protocol.

1 Like

Oh =) It’s time to show off the knowledge of the history of project. Initially, there was a letter “z”, zAssets - used in the Mainnet Chaosnet phase. Since it was originally planned that Chaosnet - will always live as part of the Devnet → Testnet → Chaosnet pipeline, the developers decided to leave the contracts with zAssets. And for Mainnet SubZero/Zero/One - deploy new contacts with renAssets.

The rBTC ticker was already busy (Rootstock RSK).
I think no one will be offended if I quote part of the discussion on this topic, from December 30, 2019

1 Like

Oh bummer. Thanks for the history lesson though!

I think subscript would be the coolest way to do things, but subscript isn’t well-supported in wallets, explorers, and stuff like that:

image

2 Likes

That’s a unique way of naming wrapped assets!! I could dig it, I still like the “r” in front more, but I’m interested in hearing why you think is cool or beneficial with the subscript? Aesthetics? Practical?

I’d prefer if we stop thinking of these tokens as wrappers and simply just as BTC, at least on the user level. We’re trading BTC tokens, I don’t want to care about having to call it ren-BTC really, even if it is important in the backend for developers.

A subscript puts less focus on the wrapper and more focus on the asset, it puts ‘BTC’ first

5 Likes

I 100% agree! I also believe it’s really about the assets themselves. All in favor of proposals that highlight benefits for the assets themselves.