Proposal description
The Dash Core Group (DCG) CTO, Samuel Westrich, has expressed confidence that barring any unforeseen surprises, the release of what is currently called “Dash Platform”, a major part of the upgrade formerly called “Dash Evolution”, is now likely to only be a matter of months away from public release. Despite this, our marketing remains potentially hindered by community calls that the product shouldn’t be released under that name alone, and members of DCG have previously expressed that they would like community guidance in the form of a proposal on what name the platform and associated products should be branded under prior to that release. If that has changed, then I’ve missed it, and so I think now would be a good time to poll the masternodes and hopefully reach consensus on what the branding should be when marketing these products to the wider world.
As I understand it, the decision to change the name away from "Dash Evolution", to relegate that to a pre-release code name, and to speak primarily about the more generic “Platform” was made internally within DCG under Ryan Taylor in part to diffuse the community’s expectations for a single revolutionary release once it was established that the release would come out in stages, have multiple components, and as the release date was increasingly delayed. Now many of those components have been developed and are nearing deployment, I think it’s worthwhile to reconsider returning to the original name of "Dash Evolution" in order to regenerate some of that same impact that was being distanced, and that the name “Evolution” still carries both within the Dash community and hopefully in the wider crypto market. If the crypto space still remembers Dash from older days, then the name “Evolution” will have a degree of resonance outside the Dash community too. I propose renaming the “Dash Platform” to the “Evolution Platform”, the “Dash Evolution Platform”, or simply “Dash Evolution”, and to consider similar naming for components that make use of it. For instance the platform “High Performance Masternodes” and their HPMNOs might instead be named “Evolution Nodes”. While I remain confident that these specifics can be worked out on a case by cases basis within the Dash community, and can even differ depending on audience and taste, I think there is a need for a masternode vote on a general overall cohesive brand name for these products.
Unlike alternative names such as “Dash Net” or “Dash Platform” that when used as web search keywords return various products and websites other than Dash, “Dash Evolution” returns relatively little besides this cryptocurrency project when searched for on most major search engines. Search for “Dash Evolution” and you get sent directly to the resources of this network. Search “Dash” or “Dash platform”, and you may need to dig to varying degrees or add qualifiers to find the cryptocurrency. This is not the case for “Dash Evolution”, and that should help to create a unique brand identity that can more easily cut through the noise of the internet and onboard new users. “Dash Evolution” also has the advantage that it still has a fair amount of related and searchable content at the top of Google from our previous marketing efforts when the project was first proposed, and from during the earlier stages of its development. This is from the time when it was still at the front of people’s minds in the broader cryptocurrency space, and it will no doubt have remained there, at least to some degree, for many of those people to be reminded about.
The name “Dash Evolution” to me is also the fulfillment of a promise that was made to both the investors in this network and to the cryptocurrency space at large, first by Evan Duffield, and then expanded on by his successors, namely that was initially a decentralized system of usernames that hide the cryptographic addresses to allow a user friendly experience using cryptocurrency as digital money, and has since become much more besides with the creation of Dash Platform. I think that many people outside of the Dash network may have long ago decided that this promise was a lie, a fraud to sell coins to unsuspecting and naïve investors that were looking for a narrative about a bright shiny future that didn’t exist, which is sadly what so many projects in the broader space have done before and since. However, in our case this wasn’t a lie. Over the last five years, and at a cost of many millions of dollars and countless man-hours, the members of this network have, largely silently, built that Evolution Platform and have delivered on those promises. If anything, once platform is released this network will have “over delivered” with a much broader and increased functionality well beyond the original vision. I think it’s about time we finally let the rest of the world know that. Let’s answer the question “Wen Evo?” with the unequivocal answer of “Now”. Dash Evolution is what was promised, it’s what was built, and it’s what we are delivering.
Let’s give our users, investors; the crypto influences, and even our detractors a coherent and compelling narrative for when Dash’s price starts to rise up, one that they can easily explain to their friends and followers. The name “Evolution” naturally lends itself to marketing imagery from the double helix to plays on Darwin and the evolution of money. It speaks to something technical and revolutionary, and when combined with “Dash”, it’s a positively motivated revolution and a process speeding up. Let’s set our creative minds free now to begin designing that message so that they can be ready the same moment that the technology is. I would also expect that "Evolution" as a tag is likely to interface well with existing and emerging AI image generation software to create meaningful imagery in a way that more generic prompts "Platform" or "Net" are unlikely to do.
In terms of the options presented here:
A YES Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that the Dash Platform, and the related services associated with our general contract and user name engines, be broadly branded using the “Evolution” and “Dash Evolution” names.
A NO Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that a different name or branding to be used for these products at launch.
Additional Note: In March 2022 the DCG conducted a non-binding and advisory poll, where they took submissions from the community on what to rename “Dash Platform”. This was neither limited to masternodes, nor did it take what I would consider to be a very large sample of the overall community based on turnout. None the less, out of the 86 potential names submitted, they noted that “with a sum of 156, ‘Dashnet‘ has received an average rating of 3.62. ‘Evolution‘, with a
total of 121 stars, is rated 3.55.” and suggested that these two options would be put to the masternode network if the results of the poll were to be used. My understanding was that this poll was not thoroughly advertised and unfortunately, despite ‘Evolution’ coming in second place, it had a confounding factor that ‘Evolution’ was actually presented to voters twice, once in full, and once as a separate option in a different place with the contracted title of ‘Evo’. The results of this poll can be found at dashcontests.com/platform.
This proposal, in contrast, is intended as a network wide vote to signal the preferences of the Dash Masternode network, particularly ahead of the now hopefully much more imminent release of the platform product. I think that voting systems work most effectively when they are asking maximally individuated and binary questions. If anyone would like to put forward a proposal related to the name ‘Dashnet’, or any other potential name, I would therefore strongly encourage them to do so next cycle.
EDIT: To clarify, the intent behind this proposal is that, if it passes, "Platform" and the related products be branded with "Evolution" and "Dash Evolution" names on a long term basis, or until the network overall comes to consensus that they should change, so that Evolution can become synonymous with our contract and user name layer overall, rather than that "Evolution" should form the first release name in a series of iterative releases with different names such as those used by other cryptocurrencies. In that sense, the naming proposed is that for example the "Dash Evolution Platform" be analogous to the "Ethereum Virtual Machine", rather than for example "Dash Evolution" being analogous to "Ethereum Homestead", although it could also be used for both.
EDIT: Some people have attempted to hijack this critical decision proposal and make it a personal referendum on asking for 1 Dash or 2 for decisions. Please don't risk such an important issue being hijacked through a split vote on an unrelated issue. This is not a referendum on fees. No doubt some will vote down a repeat proposal as spam. An uncertain but honest question can go either way, and therefore 2 Dash is required to ensure there isn't an economic disincentive for framing a question in the most objective terms possible, which is critical for governance proposals. That was my reasoning here. I understand that many feel 1 Dash is a better compromise, and I have agreed to not request 2 Dash for governance proposals again until the voting system redesign scheduled for next year. If you want to have a referendum on decision proposal funding request amounts GO MAKE YOUR OWN PROPOSAL.
Let’s vote and see how people feel.
Magnus.
As I understand it, the decision to change the name away from "Dash Evolution", to relegate that to a pre-release code name, and to speak primarily about the more generic “Platform” was made internally within DCG under Ryan Taylor in part to diffuse the community’s expectations for a single revolutionary release once it was established that the release would come out in stages, have multiple components, and as the release date was increasingly delayed. Now many of those components have been developed and are nearing deployment, I think it’s worthwhile to reconsider returning to the original name of "Dash Evolution" in order to regenerate some of that same impact that was being distanced, and that the name “Evolution” still carries both within the Dash community and hopefully in the wider crypto market. If the crypto space still remembers Dash from older days, then the name “Evolution” will have a degree of resonance outside the Dash community too. I propose renaming the “Dash Platform” to the “Evolution Platform”, the “Dash Evolution Platform”, or simply “Dash Evolution”, and to consider similar naming for components that make use of it. For instance the platform “High Performance Masternodes” and their HPMNOs might instead be named “Evolution Nodes”. While I remain confident that these specifics can be worked out on a case by cases basis within the Dash community, and can even differ depending on audience and taste, I think there is a need for a masternode vote on a general overall cohesive brand name for these products.
Unlike alternative names such as “Dash Net” or “Dash Platform” that when used as web search keywords return various products and websites other than Dash, “Dash Evolution” returns relatively little besides this cryptocurrency project when searched for on most major search engines. Search for “Dash Evolution” and you get sent directly to the resources of this network. Search “Dash” or “Dash platform”, and you may need to dig to varying degrees or add qualifiers to find the cryptocurrency. This is not the case for “Dash Evolution”, and that should help to create a unique brand identity that can more easily cut through the noise of the internet and onboard new users. “Dash Evolution” also has the advantage that it still has a fair amount of related and searchable content at the top of Google from our previous marketing efforts when the project was first proposed, and from during the earlier stages of its development. This is from the time when it was still at the front of people’s minds in the broader cryptocurrency space, and it will no doubt have remained there, at least to some degree, for many of those people to be reminded about.
The name “Dash Evolution” to me is also the fulfillment of a promise that was made to both the investors in this network and to the cryptocurrency space at large, first by Evan Duffield, and then expanded on by his successors, namely that was initially a decentralized system of usernames that hide the cryptographic addresses to allow a user friendly experience using cryptocurrency as digital money, and has since become much more besides with the creation of Dash Platform. I think that many people outside of the Dash network may have long ago decided that this promise was a lie, a fraud to sell coins to unsuspecting and naïve investors that were looking for a narrative about a bright shiny future that didn’t exist, which is sadly what so many projects in the broader space have done before and since. However, in our case this wasn’t a lie. Over the last five years, and at a cost of many millions of dollars and countless man-hours, the members of this network have, largely silently, built that Evolution Platform and have delivered on those promises. If anything, once platform is released this network will have “over delivered” with a much broader and increased functionality well beyond the original vision. I think it’s about time we finally let the rest of the world know that. Let’s answer the question “Wen Evo?” with the unequivocal answer of “Now”. Dash Evolution is what was promised, it’s what was built, and it’s what we are delivering.
Let’s give our users, investors; the crypto influences, and even our detractors a coherent and compelling narrative for when Dash’s price starts to rise up, one that they can easily explain to their friends and followers. The name “Evolution” naturally lends itself to marketing imagery from the double helix to plays on Darwin and the evolution of money. It speaks to something technical and revolutionary, and when combined with “Dash”, it’s a positively motivated revolution and a process speeding up. Let’s set our creative minds free now to begin designing that message so that they can be ready the same moment that the technology is. I would also expect that "Evolution" as a tag is likely to interface well with existing and emerging AI image generation software to create meaningful imagery in a way that more generic prompts "Platform" or "Net" are unlikely to do.
In terms of the options presented here:
A YES Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that the Dash Platform, and the related services associated with our general contract and user name engines, be broadly branded using the “Evolution” and “Dash Evolution” names.
A NO Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that a different name or branding to be used for these products at launch.
Additional Note: In March 2022 the DCG conducted a non-binding and advisory poll, where they took submissions from the community on what to rename “Dash Platform”. This was neither limited to masternodes, nor did it take what I would consider to be a very large sample of the overall community based on turnout. None the less, out of the 86 potential names submitted, they noted that “with a sum of 156, ‘Dashnet‘ has received an average rating of 3.62. ‘Evolution‘, with a
total of 121 stars, is rated 3.55.” and suggested that these two options would be put to the masternode network if the results of the poll were to be used. My understanding was that this poll was not thoroughly advertised and unfortunately, despite ‘Evolution’ coming in second place, it had a confounding factor that ‘Evolution’ was actually presented to voters twice, once in full, and once as a separate option in a different place with the contracted title of ‘Evo’. The results of this poll can be found at dashcontests.com/platform.
This proposal, in contrast, is intended as a network wide vote to signal the preferences of the Dash Masternode network, particularly ahead of the now hopefully much more imminent release of the platform product. I think that voting systems work most effectively when they are asking maximally individuated and binary questions. If anyone would like to put forward a proposal related to the name ‘Dashnet’, or any other potential name, I would therefore strongly encourage them to do so next cycle.
EDIT: To clarify, the intent behind this proposal is that, if it passes, "Platform" and the related products be branded with "Evolution" and "Dash Evolution" names on a long term basis, or until the network overall comes to consensus that they should change, so that Evolution can become synonymous with our contract and user name layer overall, rather than that "Evolution" should form the first release name in a series of iterative releases with different names such as those used by other cryptocurrencies. In that sense, the naming proposed is that for example the "Dash Evolution Platform" be analogous to the "Ethereum Virtual Machine", rather than for example "Dash Evolution" being analogous to "Ethereum Homestead", although it could also be used for both.
EDIT: Some people have attempted to hijack this critical decision proposal and make it a personal referendum on asking for 1 Dash or 2 for decisions. Please don't risk such an important issue being hijacked through a split vote on an unrelated issue. This is not a referendum on fees. No doubt some will vote down a repeat proposal as spam. An uncertain but honest question can go either way, and therefore 2 Dash is required to ensure there isn't an economic disincentive for framing a question in the most objective terms possible, which is critical for governance proposals. That was my reasoning here. I understand that many feel 1 Dash is a better compromise, and I have agreed to not request 2 Dash for governance proposals again until the voting system redesign scheduled for next year. If you want to have a referendum on decision proposal funding request amounts GO MAKE YOUR OWN PROPOSAL.
Let’s vote and see how people feel.
Magnus.
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
Bearing in mind the proposal text: "I propose renaming the “Dash Platform” to the “Evolution Platform”, the “Dash Evolution Platform”, or simply “Dash Evolution”, and to consider similar naming for components that make use of it. For instance the platform “High Performance Masternodes” and their HPMNOs might instead be named “Evolution Nodes”. While I remain confident that these specifics can be worked out on a case by cases basis within the Dash community, and can even differ depending on audience and taste, I think there is a need for a masternode vote on a general overall cohesive brand name for these products."
We've currently got a layer 1 blockchain called "Dash", with a currency called "Dash", and nodes called "Masternodes". A layer 2 blockchain called the "Platform Chain", with a currency called "Platform Credits", a state machine called "Platform", and nodes called "High Performance Masternodes". My personal preference would be to change those second layer names to something like the "Evolution Chain", with a currency called "Evolution Credits", on the "Evolution Platform", with nodes called "Evolution Nodes".
That way the combination of the layer 1 "Dash Core" with the new layer 2 "Evolution" state machine, combine to create the "Dash Evolution" release. Those names aren't fixed, and this is all up for discussion and debate, but that's conceptually how I personally see that happening and being meaningful on a technical level, while also providing the largest marketing benefit.
This way we can capture the unique search terms Dash Evolution, and differentiate the project that way without compromising the Dash branding at all associated with the Layer 1. It's Dash and Dash Evolution, depending on what you're talking about. I'm assuming the many articles that have been written (but can't be found easily) can be changed by a basic find and replace with a cursory check for context consistency, and suddenly we would have a huge online presence when anyone searches "Dash Evolution" right out the gate.
To be honest. I'd be fine with any name that is searchable and unique. But the whole state layer needs to be named something good.
Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, Monero, Zcash, EOS, Tezos, Thorchain, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, these are just better more searchable and unique names, objectively.
"Dash Platform"? Jesus Christ, no. Have some empathy. We were #80 by market cap, with no organic coverage, no one can find anything Marine posts unless they are already deep diving dash.org because it's all about "Dash Platform", which will never be found. How the hell are people actually meant to discover dash and end up here with a bag full? Like physically how are we proposing that happens? If it weren't for Amanda, and the fact that we started when there were very few other coins, this discord would be empty. Most people in crypto do not know what Dash is. They arrived after 2017, and to them we simply don't exist. How do they find us? If you were literally them what would you literally need to do, that you yourself would actually personally do, in order to end up here.
There's a reason this network is made up of nodes and "Master Nodes", not nodes and "Second Tier Nodes". Why bitcoin is a gold coin with miners. Why the old dash logo looked like it was moving at speed. What is a "Platform" if you're not a dev? A flat object, maybe like a board.
That's all fine for internal communication, but when investing money, I want to know that the people developing and maintaining the code base are creative as well as great engineers, or that the project itself is overall at a minimum. Investment is about future potential. I want my product to sound like serious money when it needs to be spoken of in those terms, and like a magic incantation when it needs to be spoken of in those terms. "Maya Protocol", "Ethereum Virtual Machine", "Ren Bridge", even "Terra Luna", hell even "Bitcoin Miner" back in the day...
1. Copycat proposals created later are clearly spam unless there is a meaningful difference between them, and if there is a meaningful difference, then they aren't spam.
2. Spam is never incentivised, as proposals always costs money when down voted. A "no" answer never pays and can't ever pay in the current system.
3. The validity of "no" decisions is more or less affected by one dash the same way as it is by two dash, the asymmetry between the answers already exists and is clearly considered fine.
4. No votes from question proposals should already never lead to active decisions by the network, only to temporary inaction, that way there is never a direct cost to the network in saying no, and no absurd "force". This applies to all questions. Silence isn't violence.
To repeat myself, which I apparently am being asked to do, please don't risk such an important issue being hijacked through a split vote on an unrelated issue. This is not a referendum on fees. No doubt some will vote down a repeat proposal on the Evolution question as spam. An uncertain but honest question can go either way, and therefore 2 Dash is required to ensure there isn't an economic disincentive for framing a question in the most objective terms possible, which is critical for governance proposals. That was my reasoning here. I understand that many feel 1 Dash is a better compromise, and I have agreed to not request 2 Dash for governance proposals again until the voting system redesign scheduled for next year. If you want to have a referendum on decision proposal funding request amounts GO MAKE YOUR OWN PROPOSAL.
EDIT: Some people have attempted to hijack this critical decision proposal and make it a personal referendum on asking for 1 Dash or 2 for decisions. Please don't risk such an important issue being hijacked through a split vote on an unrelated issue. This is not a referendum on fees. No doubt some will vote down a repeat proposal as spam. An uncertain but honest question can go either way, and therefore 2 Dash is required to ensure there isn't an economic disincentive for framing a question in the most objective terms possible, which is critical for governance proposals. That was my reasoning here. I understand that many feel 1 Dash is a better compromise, and I have agreed to not request 2 Dash for governance proposals again until the voting system redesign scheduled for next year. If you want to have a referendum on decision proposal funding request amounts GO MAKE YOUR OWN PROPOSAL.
(Notice that this proposal is requesting 2 Dash.)
Any decision proposal - asking a governance question which our network/community shall honor as valid - must never result in a gain for the questioner. Otherwise, we would have problems:
1. It would create an incentive for multiple different people to ask the same identical question. And identical proposal questions might even have conflicting results.
2. Frivolous questions (spam) would become incentivized. Any question that the MNOs are likely to decide "yes" on would suddenly be a profitable opportunity for abuse - free Dash for the questioner. It would become a game.
3. The validity of certain "no" decisions would come into contention. I guarantee this will become a major distraction. I myself will probably fight very hard against honoring them.
4. We would literally be forced to either grant free funding to a questioner, or not answer "yes" to the question. That's absurd.
Whenever we honor the result of a decision proposal question as the MNOs' legitimate answer, there always must be no possible way for the questioner to end up gaining personally. Perverse proposals should be downvoted - regardless of what the question is asking, because the ask is not legitimate.
A "no" vote is a vote to deny funding to the questioner, rather than an answer to the question.
Just ignore the proposal's expressed supposed meaning of "no", because that is illegitimate.
ALL MNOS:
Regardless of whether or not you would like Dash Platform to be marketed as Dash Evolution, you should vote "no" on this proposal. The questioner is asking to get paid Dash, so that makes this a vote (yes/no) on whether or not to pay treasury funds to the questioner. Everyone please vote "no".
If this question about the name "Evolution" is important enough, then someone should create a different decision proposal on it, asking for only 1 Dash.
So in this particular case i decided to vote on the governance question and not vote on the requested funding of 2 dash. This is an one-time exception from my part, as i do see the exploit vector when proposal owners are asking governance questions while at the same time requesting more dash than the proposal fee.
So i switched from yes, to no, to yes again. Not happy about it, but i let it slide for now.
If you google "Dash Platform" Dash is not the first result. If you google "Dash Evolution" it is. I would like to use Evolution branding for the simple reason that it is a more unique combination of words that will keep us from getting lost.
Kind of minor, but something else to consider
This becomes possible by Dash utilizing the masternode network to its fullest and developing for Dash itself the evolutionary enhancements : Decentralized API (DAPI), Drive, Trustless Data Verification Oracle. So for Dash as a crypto project, the Platform update is evolutionary as well as it will redefine Dash as a crypto project and provide Dash with additional use cases.
So i think we should be using Dash Evolution for general marketing, because that is precisely what it is for Dash as a crypto project and for the Dash users.
And i think for developers we should continue using Dash Platform as the landing place where developers can find developer information / SDK's / more technical information.
Dash Evolution should have a referral to Dash Platform somewhere for developers to get their information, but Dash Evolution should mainly focus with its marketing message on reaching both users familiar to Dash / crypto in general and users unfamiliar to Dash / crypto in general.
The different arguments for asking for nothing (0 Dash), reimbursement of the fee if the proposal is answered in a specific way (1 Dash), reimbursement of the fee on average when proposals answer is uncertain but also useful on average (2 Dash), or reimbursement for more than just the proposal fee itself (2+ Dash), are interesting and come from quite different perspectives. However, I want to take a moment to address the concern you raised here over no-votes binding peoples hands, as I think that's a valid concern and quite a far reaching one.
Voting systems that poll people have a few inbuilt problems. Ideas such as the social welfare, or the common good, or the will of the people, where a collective group is assumed through some apportionment rules to have a singular will or logical position in the ways that a singular mind can have, have been proven mathematically false. To paraphrase the Austrian economist von Mises "Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts". This leads me to two important points that are related here:
1. Given that the masternodes as a group cannot have a singular answer to a governance question unless they literally all agree, the way in which voting systems can most closely approach useful results that wouldn't be taken as a sign of mental deterioration in a human person, is therefore to ask a singular and clearly defined question with a YES/NO answer.
In the past I've noticed that this hasn't happened. Multiple questions have been asked in one proposal often with some ambiguity, multiple interrelated proposals have been put forward together asking related questions, and proposals have been submitted where a YES or a NO vote both lead to actions being taken by the network. This kind of question creates an inescapable set of problems including the one you described, and I think the issues they create heavily damage credibility when being taken to infer the intent of the masternode network.
2. In order to address this further, so long as a single issue YES/NO vote is being proposed, the NO vote option needs to lead to no action being taken by the network. A NO vote on a governance proposal should never be taken as implying that something else should actively happen. Silence isn't violence, if you get the point. A NO vote should therefore always be the neutral response to a binary question.
While I believe that should be the case for the reasons given, irrespective of if the questioner requests 0 Dash or the full budget, it also (non-coincidentally) completely eliminates the dangerous gaming issue you've described here.
I would therefore like to apologize for this question's framing:
"A NO Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that a *different name* or branding be used for these products at launch."
On reflection, it would have been much better to say that:
"A NO Vote - should be selected to signal that you would prefer that the question of what brand to use remain open."
As long as governance questions are asked in this manner, and we remember that not matter what the result they are just intended to gauge consensus in the moment, and not to create binding precedent, then the issue you've described here shouldn't arise, I believe the governance system will work much more effectively and be more representative of what masternodes actually think, and we should be free to let the market decide which proposals and forms of proposal best meet the needs of the network.
Magnus.
I personally love the Evolution name, as do many that have kept with the project over the years. My initial thoughts though are that I think the name Evolution should be more associated to the release family (first year of releases or so) and not as a permanent product, but as I said, still thinking about my views on the topic and might change my mind. I haven't voted yet, and would love to hear what more people have to say.
When we think about naming strategies it might be worthwhile to adopt a similar strategy that AWS has used, EC2, EBS, etc... It might be worthwhile from an exterior view having everything be just Dash as to not confuse people with so many names.
If they see "Dash", the next time they see that name it most likely won't be the cryptocurrency, and if they ever Google it, they would have to be quite lucky to find Dash, or information about Dash. Maybe it's DoorDash, maybe it's dash.ie, maybe its the aircooker brand, there are thousands of Dash brands before you even get into the name meaning speed, the incredibles character, or the punctuation mark.
If however, you run the same advert with "Dash Evolution", they find us just like they find Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, Ethereum, etc. I think that makes a difference, and Evolution is such a strong name in terms of creating an association with already existing mental imagery in the public consciousness, and having tons of ready name imagery for us to add Dash too, it's a place where we can really differentiate our whole brand. Type "Evolution" into a gif generator and the memes are 90% already pre-made, and they are good.
As an added bonus, when we have a differentiated brand that people can find as distinctive no one is going to misspell "Dash Evolution" even if they just hear the name phonetically, unlike say "Light Coin".
The release of platform is a unique opportunity to add that association and make us orders of magnitude more searchable and differentiated without losing any of the existing Dash branding or say changing the name of the actual cryptocurrency project, which no one wants to do, and would be a huge loss in some respects. Dash is the layer one blockchain and the backbone of the "layer 2" Evolution platform. They are separate, and distinct things, but they are also linked together, and a huge amount of our branding will focus on them together quite naturally anyway.
Finally, "Platform" actually has the same issue that "Dash" has. It's even more generic, and even more companies have platforms, or are named platform, so we really do need a modification or a name change there anyway in order to distinguish the product. No one outside of the existing community is going to get excited for "Dash Platform", as they could hypothetically for say the "Solana Neon EVM".
A platform is flat, even if it's moving a Dash.
Marketing and brand wise, Dash has an uphill battle against it. We must overcome preconceived notions that are biased against Dash, a core part of that is cohesive messaging under an umbrella term, 'Evolution' or otherwise. To show we've had seismic change from where we were when they last had a touchpoint with Dash. All of this is about an experience people have when they find/re-find Dash, we need a Eureka Moment that users install a fucking awesome wallet, get an identity, interface with great/fun/useful dapps that they value (this varies from user to user), the community, and otherwise are presented with the best of everything Dash both transactional and platform.
At this point it might be better to go with a reboot brand, such as "Revo-lution" or "Revo" for short. For reasons of SEO it would become "Reevo" to reinforce correct pronunciation.
In any event, this is a very inefficient way to choose a brand name. A DAO / cooperative is unable to make such decisions, they are risk averse and lack relevant experience.. You would get better results by putting Ernesto and Marine in a room and not letting them out until a decision was made. In the end though, such things should actually be done by professional brand builders.
Dash marketing is straight up awful. You will end up doing this "in-house" when it's in all likelihood the worst possible way to do it.
In my opinion, in general and over time, an honest question to which the answer is unknown should not be disincentivised. The proposal fee is not there to charge for asking genuine questions, it's there as a spam filter to stop malicious or negligent questions, which is a very different thing.
Given that no vote is certain, and I don't know precisely how uncertain, the next most rational assumption is ignorance (50/50), and that means 2 Dash should always be requested, so that genuine questions can be asked freely. Not for "profit" but so that the "expectation" value is zero, rather than a loss for genuine questioning.
There is already a similar but much smaller moral hazard and biasing from the difference between 0 and 1 Dash. If we honestly believe that questions should cost, and that the moral hazard should be removed, then the logical position is actually that governance proposals should not request anything.
More generally I agree that the asymmetry between YES and NO results bias both the framing of the question and the votes themselves, but if we accept that it should be 1 Dash, which this what others have consistently done, then I think it should actually be 2 Dash. I don't care much for precedents, and I think asks of either 0 or 2 Dash both make sense for different but completely rational reasons, and that both come with different issues and benefits. 1 Dash is actually an arbitrary compromise, that doesn't make much sense to me. Hopefully this isn't a meaningful factor for how you want to vote.
Voting systems only really work when addressing maximally specified single issues at a time, with binary YES/NO voting options, and the option that creates a change to the network in decision proposals should always be the YES option, which is exactly what I've done here.
Magnus.
What we really need, perhaps most besides the actual platform itself, is a coherent brand name that isn't just "Dash", but is totally associated with this product, and I think that needs to be stable.
If you Google Bitcoin you only get BTC. If you Google Litecoin you only get LTC. If you Google Ethereum you only get ETH. If you Google Monero you only get XMR. Go down the list. But if you Google Dash, to our dear loss imo you have to add modifiers or already know what you're looking for. Dash Evolution is a great opportunity to claim that unique identity and have it be incorporated meaningfully. In a sense it already is. $Dash is Door Dash stocks, Dash is the punctuation mark, the word for speed, and a million companies in the tech-sector, and elsewhere.
At the moment we still completely own Dash Evolution, because basically no one else has used it online yet. The branding for DNA/evolution without mentioning Dash is ubiquitous and high quality which we can use, and the fact that it relates to our hopefully permanent platform layer means that we can get all of that recognition and differentiation by fully incorporate the evolution brand, without diluting the base layer branding as "Dash" in any way as the two are integral but separate.
2. A DAO / cooperative is not capable of making these kind of decisions. Only a minority - or zero - number of MNOs have the expertise to do so. It's the same for other areas of expertise, such as how to best make Platform run on thousands of nodes. It turns out even DCG are incapable of doing it, so they polled the DAO to misdirect and shift responsibility off themselves.
Can it be Dash digital cash ?
While "Dash - Digital Cash" continues to be much better than "Dash" in an advert to a new person, as it explains the basics to someone doesn't have any frame of reference for what Dash is, I don't imagine many people have ever googled the keywords "Dash Digital Cash" who weren't already in this community, and I suspect perhaps not many of us may have either. In short, I don't think it helps differentiate us much in practical terms.
I think "Dash Evolution" on the other hand is a much more catchy brand name, and given that platform is an associated "layer 2", with layer 1 being the coin and the blockchain "Dash", naming Platform "Evolution" is a unique opportunity to change the brand without actually changing the layer 1 cryptocurrency branding, but with many of the same benefits.
If you honestly believe that the words "Dash Digital Cash" are as likely to be Googled as "Dash Evolution" after seeing an advert, then don't vote for this change I guess, but as far as I can tell it's not by almost every metric I can see.