I think with the way the coin is evolving it would be wise to change the name and drop “Classic”, especially from a marketing point of view. Classic infers it’s an old and out of date coin, like other projects that have been given Classic status (Etherium Classic for example). It is a name forced onto the project when Luna 2.0 was created in an effort to try and take the interest from the original coin to the new.
Clearly the coin is no longer a meme coin and with all the changes being made to the blockchain. I think a rebranding reflecting the evolving project is a change that will have maximum impact on social media and will be picked up by all. Many of the changes made so far although much bigger in scale and undertaking are behind the scenes changes and are not always evident to a retail investor. It is a natural progression for the project to push away from its branding of Classic and show the world that it is constantly moving forward.
Whilst I realise that a name change is a relatively minor change, and it will not solve all our problems over night, but it will be a big talking point and will cement home we have taken the destiny of the coin in our own hands as a community and removed the shackles of classic that was forced upon the project.
Many have suggested to me to put simply Luna down, this can’t be done as it will clash with the new coin. To simplify the poll I have added Luna Classic as an option for those wanting to keep the existing name and I have kept the most popular selections from the previous polls.
Apologies for the three posts linked but unfortunately previous polls can not be changed - not even by a moderator (thanks for looking into this guys). Thanks for your feedback, taking the time to read the post and vote in the poll.
LunaOne sounds more modern and cutting edge than Classic… can we live up to that name (LunaOne) is the question… right now, we are simply Classic… like a classic gasoline powered car compared to a modern hydrogen powered Bentley. Classic means outdated, cool but outdated ~ old tech…
Looking to put this proposal up on Terra station in about 1 week, it will be my first so any advice and suggestions welcome. It would be good to get some idea from a technical perspective the logistics of a name change, is this quite a big change to make? I don’t want put a proposal forward that would potentially be a nightmare for the dev team.
Please stop worrying about developers, progress is the most important thing. We need to open a new door. We have the best community in the whole KRYPTO world and really many talented programmers who need new challenges to prove their skills. They need to complete internships, PhD applications, etc. Let’s give them a chance to exist - we have the funds for that.
I would suggest not changing the name at the present. The reasons are as follows:
According to the Terra Community Trust, which appears to have remained with Terra v1, Terra v1 owns the intellectual property regarding the names Terra, LUNA, and UST.
A name change will likely not be listed under current exchanges, or any potential contracts that may exist, and therefore could cost 1-3 million an exchange. It is true that some may choose to relist without payment, but that should not be expected.
It seems that either of these have potential costs involved that Terra v1 governance via the community pool may not have at present (although if we did, my suggestion would be to explore point 1 with an attorney).
Just wanted to add those thoughts if they are helpful.
Has anyone performed a trademark search to ensure any of the suggested names are not already trademarked? This whole thing seem to be a symbolism over substance. In the end, having the name changed won’t make a bit of difference in the success of this coin but does potentially leads to more confusion over the which coin is which and people wondering if given the new coin name means that the old Terra Classic crashed again and now we are starting all over again from scratch. The name and logo are the least of our worries at this point.
This is why everyone has a vote, my friend and what counts is the majority, i.e. the collective intelligence. Thank you for participating in our discussion.
@aeuser999 - I will gladly pay these key changes, However, they must be accepted by the majority of community members. Therefore, until there is a consensus, we will not move on.
I wants to move on, as far away from - Do Kwon, I like him very much and respects him but I can afford my own kingdom !
However, he suggests registering a trademark and any logo without delay, before someone do it before us. It will be very expensive after that. Currently, it is only an application and a small fee.
Don’t confuse securing domain names with registering trademarks. I have been through the trademark registration process. It takes time, money and lawyers. Also, these costs increase as there is no one single worldwide trademark. Multiple countries involved.
@awhitehouse Hi yes I checked Luna One is not trade marked globally Global Brand Database
It used to be but like this Luna-One but this has lapsed.
@aeuser999 Thanks for the feedback and some worth while points, I totally see your reasoning and thoughts. Thats why I wanted to see the general feedback from those in the know, I don’t want it to do more harm than good and can see how priorities are more pressing in other areas. Perhaps a name change would be better timed with a more substantial update and undertaken simultaneously if thats the will of the people.
To be fair, I´ve made the same proposal, in effort to do the same except, by rebranding it Terra Genesis, Ticker “LUNG”. The proposal was absolutely crushed in voting. Its like Validators want the project to get stagneted and keep the classic name that will eventually make everyone new in crypto lose interest in it.
By changing the name and dropping the “CLASSIC”, we literally have nothing to lose!! We migh not gain much, but it won´t be prejudicial, for sure.
Go check “Proposal 10994” (Tittle: Name Changing)… 98,65% AGAINST at the current time. It was like it was coordinated against it. I don´t understand the reasoning to say NO to something that can only benefit the project. Beats me…
But I hope yours passes. I truly do, but if it does, just proves that validators are whimsical morons.
and what counts is the majority, i.e. the collective intelligence. Thank you for participating in our discussion.
