I assume ordinals weren’t called Biitcoin NFTs because of the technicality. If not for the technical difference, yes the self descriptive term “Bitcoin NFT” would be smarter. That’s what everyone calls them when they first learn about them anyway.
You said it was a Betanet so I suggested calling it Zenon Betanet.
You don’t like the idea and you want to call it hyperqube_z but perhaps describe it as a betamet - while the ecosystem of extension chains is called HyperQube. That seems confusing to me but it’s not my baby, nor my decision.
I only engaged in contributing to branding because it seemed like you wanted contributions. I have no need for my ideas to stand. Although I hope that in some cases, iterations in the process are valued.
hyperqube_z is my engineering id for it. The most efficient way for me to indicate the chain.
If the community calls it the Zenon Betanet that is fine.
But I’ve given my reason that it should not be considered THE zenon betanet.
It will be the betanet being used by HC1, a subset of the developer community.
We are just discussing.
I think it is good to keep HyperQube as a name for a framework of extension chains.
If there is disagreement there, let’s keep discussing.
I am not suggesting your ideas are bad or don’t add value.
I’m certainly not arguing that we can’t make up brands. Most brands are totally made up words. Zenon is an example.
Fwiw, when you fascetiously say, “Would it be smart to… (call it segwit…)” the backside of that is.“This is dumb.”
don’t worry I’m getting used to it.
I honestly don’t care about the branding decision. I easily take direction. But it’s a little frustrating when I feel like I’m being encouraged to contribute, do a bunch of work, and then find out that the direction I was going was always going to be a dead end. …and get called dumb.
Just evaluating the context of Ordinals,
Maybe now, one could argue that it is obvious to just call them bitcoin NFTs.
But during launch, they likely didn’t know how popular it would be and end up being the de facto standard. The branding of Ordinals was something fresh and probably got more attention than if they had just called themselves Bitcoin NFTs, which had been done before e.g Colored coins with less degrees of success. The name was something to rally behind, and it pushed bitcoin to new directions.
In the future if we are successful, we can hope people will say “hyperqube? it’s just zenon extension chains” But until that point, I do think having a HyperQube brand will be useful. Would we have the engagement so far if I had just said, join the “hypercore one extension chain effort”? I’m not sure.
Ideally, these are all backend terms that only devs and ops utilize. The more likely a user is to ever utter or need to understand what hyperqube / betanet / hyperion / extension chain are, the more ogre the ux.
I feel like I’m coming back around full circle when I thought not to create branding for supernova.
Agree. Just like how using Lightning Network should feel like any other bitcoin transaction. Is it there yet? idk. but that’s the goal.
The initial users of the hyperqube extension chains will be builders and contributors. That’s why the incubator is the first feature planned for it.
But even if the target audience is just contributors, devs, ops, we still need branding oriented towards them.
The messaging I’ve suggested does not focus on any new asset or new chain in particular. Rather I suggest it focus on the the collaborative processes we are building out, the ability for more people to get paid and thus involved, and a future tech stack that will let others spin up their own chains.
Stark has already done most of the work regarding fonts, colorschemes etc.
Maybe we get the wordmark as an svg in the cool font, bundle it into a pdf deliverable + downloadable assets and move on?
@sugoibtc what do you think? As candidate for awareness lead?
Ok, just read up on the discussion. I think it’s doable.
So TL;DR:
HyperQube == Extension chain ecosystem on NoM
They are divided into Betanets (e.g. Hyperqube_z, Hyperqube_nova etc.)
But how would we call mainnet extension chains? Would that mean that every extension chain could potentially have a Hyperqube variant to test stuff on?
The only thing I don’t really like is it being called “betanets”, but if that’s common dev-jargon it’s fine I guess…
don’t worry I’m getting used to it.
