Naming Convention Contradictions by Exchanges

Well! Are we having fun yet?

So, first post, but I’ve been lurking in read-only mode for a couple weeks now. I’ve somehow resisted the urge to create an account and log in to participate in some of the discussions during that time, until now. I have been voting on some of the obviously important proposals.

For what it’s worth, I am a (significant to me) pre-depegging LUNA holder, and a post de-pegging LUNA buyer. I guess the pre-me would be referred to as an investor by some of you, and the post-me as a vulture, as I continued to scoop tokens to cost-average my pre-depegging loss.

As I understand it now, tomorrow is the day when the influential decision makers of this ecosystem fork off to the bad side of town, as their earth-scorching party winds down.

I also understand I’ll be treated to manna from heaven, or in this case the moon … breadcrumbs raining down on me. That’s what brings me to the reason for my posting.

I’ve scoured a few major exchanges to take the pulse of the matter. Not surprisingly the exchanges must not have been given much guidance during this fiasco, in the same way the community has been mostly ignored. Three different major exchanges seem to be stating three different naming conventions for the same products.

What a mess of confusion in the renaming of the tickers. They are contradicting each other.




1 Like

Somehow people have managed even though exchanges used different naming conventions since at least 2017.