RFC-000-021: Change Ren name for branding

Name: Ren Marketing strategies
Category: Protocol
Status: Draft
Scope: Modifications to Ren’s name

Overview

With understanding that network effects is what essentially capture values and have the most impact on longterm economic viability. All big tech made their money from network effects. I believe a stronger name brand that other can understand would be great.

Following the telegram chat, a suggestion for name “Run” sounds like a great name for the project. As the word run can act as a verb and fit into whatever slogan purpose we may have. Such as run cross chain interoperability, run team strategies, etc. Time is of the essence if this “Run” word has not already been used. Other name suggestion are welcome, this is to start the initiative to improve network effects and adoption through better branding.

History

To my knowledge this is the first RFC for such a proposal.

Related RFCs

  • Not aware of any

Implementation Details

This is an early RFC to gauge community sentiment and brainstorm ideas for strategies. Actual implementation details will be added as the discussion evolves, assuming there is interest.

Implementation Requirements

  • How to update Ren.

Such a common verb is usually not a good idea for a brand name. It makes it harder to search for it, and is easily confusing.

3 Likes

No, nope… Definitely against.

4 Likes

If we ever incorporated DynamicCoin into RenVM, this name change would be cool as the asset would be runDMC. Other than that I am quite happy with Ren.

5 Likes

I think Ren is a good name, and it also works in Chinese as well, which translates to “people” I am not in support of this rebranding proposal, we have been around for 3 years, already had one brand change from republic protocol to REN, which was a good change and was the name of the token anyway.

3 Likes

:-1:t3:

Ren is a fine name.

2 Likes

Okay. Let’s leave this topic seasoned for a bit longer, maybe for a year. I think it is clear what the current sentiment is. However, I’m thinking the discomfort comes from familiarizing yourself again with something you’ve already recognized. I would like us all to take a step back from a branding and UX perspective, which is imagine yourself as an actor, another persona first time seeing the brand Ren. Does it rings or capture your attention? Let that seasoned and come back to this discussion. I just remembering the first time I saw Ren coin, I thought it was not a memorable name or it does not stand out. I don’t think the logo really speaks on what it does. I proceed to do some of my own DD and research and got to understand Ren more. So now I’m a fan and feel close to the name Ren, but the issue is just that. It’s similar to the sunk cost fallacy, am I just telling myself it’s fine when my actual first impression was otherwise. Please consider these factors. Thanks guys

It would be run coin or runBTC as one word. I don’t think search would be an issue. If you are the apex of what you do google will rank you top of the list. I’m expecting us to be on top.

What is our tagline for Ren?

I’m much more concerned with developer adoption of the REN protocol than consumer. REN has great brand recognition among teams who build. Rebranding would be a waste of energy, and a squandering of an already-built brand.

“Liquidity Unchained”

1 Like

Against.
-REN is already a name in crypto
-“Run” is closer to “Rune”…
-Changing the name shoud be based on an operational change (e.g. Ethlend to Aaave was when they changed the old P2P lending platform to liquidity pools). Otherwise, it is just a show of weakness.

While I ultimately don’t support the REN name change I think is this is a valid conversation for the community to have. In my opinion:

REN as a token name is largely irrelevant to consumer adoption. The purpose of the actual token is “as a bond to run a Darknode, which powers the sMPC network (RenVM).” Nodes are not small investments to lock up so anyone buying the token for its true utility should not care about the name.

I believe the underlying argument here is around RENs marketability in an increasingly flashy crypto environment. Many investors are turned off by any project they didn’t read about somewhere they deem credible. There is a lot of noise out there. Without a robust community and increased marketing, exposure, and partnership, sadly REN will remain in a random pile of projects for many potential DNOs and strategic partners. Steps are clearly being taken by the REN team to up the marketing game which is a step in the right direction and something the entire community should support. I would love to hear more about this in the future but I get it, this is a long game.

My summary point is that someday REN will get to the point of users not even knowing they are using it. How many people know the names of the platforms banks utilize for government legal tender transfers?

1 Like

Fair point. Marketing is important. A win is needed.

Not in favor of rebrands. Big pain in the rear submiting and waiting on exchanges, coingecko etc to change over. Ren is a fine brand anyway I think.

Keep the name, it is identifiable.

Focus should be on a more scalable business plan to capture market cap/TVL. The biggest problem is the 100k entrance into participating in the darknode environment. I understand it keeps the system honest, to mandate we all have skin in the game. But, something here needs to be made more attractive for others to participate in.

I thought this idea was DOPE until Shiny mentioned RUNDMC ,which would be a kicking token name.

Imagine the Frens we would lose with a name change? It would not be fRUN!

REN is already making a name for itself and unless we are running from something we best not to change the name.