Why do encryption projects always change names

Author: ChainCatcher

 

In the traditional business world, brand assets are the lifeline of an enterprise. The frequent renaming is almost equivalent to the spontaneous destruction of the moat。

Young Weida does not change his name every few years, Apple does not give up Apple because of a business transition, and Nike does not push his brand back because of a market cycle。

But in the world of encrypted currency, the rules are often the opposite. According to RootData, over 16% of encryption projects have been named, and many front-line well-known projects have been renamed。

JUST YESTERDAY, THE IP ECOSYSTEM ON THE CHAINStory ProtocolIt is announced that the name DATA will be changed, and the IP token will be moved to the new DATA token by 1:1. In the last few months, Xion changed its nameVeronaMattixport to nameBIT, TON TOKEN CHANGED TO GRAM. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIMEKlaytnI don't knowEOSI don't knowFantomI don't knowMakerDaoI don't knowElrondI don't knowMatic NetworkWaiting for a group of famous projects to change their names。

More extreme projects have changed their names more than once. Like whatMAITIXFormer names include CENTRAL, X Network, XLD Finance; BitSafe used the names dlcBT, DLC.LinkTaleXUsed to be Read2N, Metale ProtocolKGeNUsed to be called indiGG, Kratos Gaming Network. The more names change, but most projects do not gain new lives because of new names, but are becoming silent。

This leads to a question that is rarely taken seriously in the encryption industry: Why do encryption projects always change names

The answer may not be complicated: in the encryption industry, branding is not the most important asset, but attention, narratives, token prices and liquidity。

 

One, encryption brand loyalty is too low

Traditional brands are afraid of changing names because user loyalty comes from long-term consumption experiences. A user who bought an iPhone for years, drank Starbucks for years and wore it for years, Nike, his brand recognition wasn't built on a single day, and it didn't change easily because of a marketing campaign。

However, the user structure of the encryption project is completely different。

Most of the early users are not traditional consumers, but investors, air-drop hunters, mobile providers, nodal participants and narrative traders. Their use of products is not necessarily due to their usefulness, but to the possibility of free investment, the possibility of profit and the possibility of an increase in space。

This means that user loyalty to encrypted brands is naturally weaker。

In the traditional industry, the user asks, “This brand value is not trustworthy”; in the encryption industry, the user asks, more often, “Is the currency still rising?” As long as prices are low, narratives fail and ecological silence, the old name becomes a negative asset。

A NAME THAT HAS EXPERIENCED A COLLAPSE, TRAPPING, HACKING, TEAM DISPUTES OR ROUTE FAILURE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO INSPIRE MARKET IMAGINATION. IT CARRIES NOT BRAND ASSETS, BUT K WIRE WOUNDS AND COMMUNITY GRIEVANCES。

This is also the underlying reason why encryption projects can change names frequently: in many cases the old name has no moat, only the burden of history。

 

Change of name is a marketing strategy

Not all renamings should simply be considered as “salvations”. It is true that some projects are renamed because the original name does not carry the new strategic scope and, as the concept of market hotspots changes, if the names include old concepts such as “Social”, “DAO”, or if the meaning of the name does not coincide, a change of name is inevitable。

For example, OpenSocial changed its name to Eden after the transformation of AI, and went to the centralized electronic signature platform EthSign chose to remove the name "Eth" after the business outreach, using the Taifeng Side Chain Matic Network, and changed its name to Polygon (meaning polygons) after building several outreach solutions。

When the boundaries of project operations change fundamentally, the original brand may limit external perceptions. The change of name at this time is a necessary strategic calibration。

There are, of course, a number of proactive “hot spots” projects that can receive more attention by putting names on hot lines. Elrond changed his name to MultiversX in the last round of the meta-cosmic heat, adding the "Multiverse" element directly to his name, clearly hoping to join the narrative of the meta-cosm and the multi-dimensional digital world。

Similarly, in AI, RWA, Perp, many projects are rapidly approaching new concepts through a renaming. Vanilla Finance, for example, changed its name to Superp and Fund X to Pundi AI, reshaping its narrative。

AFTER ALL, IN THE ENCRYPTION INDUSTRY NARRATIVES ARE THEMSELVES PART OF ASSET PRICING. THE CLOSER THE NAME IS TO THE NEW NARRATIVE, THE EASIER IT WILL BE TO BE RE-INTRODUCED BY THE EXCHANGE, KOL, THE DIASPORA AND MARKET FUNDS。

There are many projects, and the core reason for the change of name is that the old brand has fallen to the bottom of the trust valley。

In the history of the encryption industry, hacker attacks, contractual loopholes, theft of cross-chain bridges and teamwork can quickly destroy the brand credit of a project. Once the user has tied a name to the “stolen” “uncompensation” of the “stolen” “trash”, the continued use of the old name means continuing to carry negative public opinion。

As a result, the renaming became the most direct public relations tool for the project, and it was also called “branding”。

Anyswap was renamed Multichain after the theft and Alpha Finance was stolen for $370 million and Stella for similar colours. On the surface, they are repositioning product lines and strategies; however, from market perceptions, renaming also carries some degree of “cutting old memories”。

 

III. Grey space for currency change

If it's just a name change, the impact is actually limited. It is truly alarming that many encryption projects are often renamed with currency exchange。

The exchange of currency means that the old currency needs to be moved to a new currency, and the exchange issues announcements that the transaction will be suspended, that the old transaction will fall off, and that the new transaction will be wired. This is a rare second listing opportunity for project participants。

MANY PROJECTS WILL BE SPLIT IN TOKENS. FOR EXAMPLE, 1:100, 1:1000, TO BREAK MORE OF THE ORIGINAL HIGHER-PRICED TOKENS TO MAKE IT LOOK CHEAPER. THE PROJECTS SKY AND BEAM HAVE ALL TAKEN A SIMILAR APPROACH. DISMANTLING SHARES PER SE DOES NOT CHANGE THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY, AND LOW UNIT PRICES TEND TO ATTRACT GREATER ATTENTION FROM THE DIASPORA。

MORE CRUCIALLY, AFTER A CHANGE OF NAME, THE K-LINE OF THE EXCHANGE IS OFTEN WIPED OUT。

FOR MANY OF THEM, HISTORY IS A HEAVY BURDEN. NUMEROUS SETS OF PALLETS, DOWNWARD TRENDS, NEGATIVE NEWS AND RESISTANCE POSITIONS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN CONDENSED IN THE OLD K-LINE. WHEN THE NEW CURRENCY CAME ONLINE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE COMPLETELY NEW CHARTS, NO HISTORICAL HEIGHTS OF REPRESSION, NO LONG-TERM SHADOWS OF DECLINE AND NO INTUITIVE MEMORY。

This is of great benefit to the project and to the market. When the old currency is moved to the new currency, many exchanges are suspended. At this point in time, the real liquidity of the secondary market may become light. On a small number of open-trade platforms, the relatively small amount of money required to make market money can raise the price of the new currency and create a market illusion of “upgraded boom”。

Subsequently, project parties, early participants or market funds may be used to recover liquidity and follow up with users to complete delivery。

This is the most dangerous place for a change of name: It appears to be a brand upgrade and may be a liquidity replacement。

Further, many projects will be re-engineered in the exchange of currencies. What ordinary users see is 1:1 migration to assume that their rights and interests are not compromised. However, project participants may create large amounts of new coins in a vacuum by adding certification incentives, ecological funds, team incentives, nodal subsidies and strategic reserves。

FRONT CHANGE NAMESelf ChainTVK CHANGED NAMEVanar ChainIt's a typical case. They all produce large increases in tokens on the grounds of nodal incentives, ecological construction and the dilution of the value of user currency。

 

IV. The real problem is not to change name, but to avoid history

The encryption project can certainly be renamed, which is not a serious problem。

Changes in technology routes, expansion of product boundaries, market hotspot shifts and legal risk cutting can all lead to a rational rebranding. A case such as Matic's renaming of Polygon shows that a good name does help the project take over a larger strategic space。

In more cases, however, encryption projects have been renamed not to settle brand names but to escape brand names。

ESCAPED FROM THE OLD K LINE, ESCAPED FROM THE CAGE, ESCAPED FROM THE HACKER ATTACK, ESCAPED FROM THE FAILED NARRATIVE, ESCAPED FROM THE USER QUESTIONS AND ESCAPED FROM THE STORY THAT HAD BEEN TOLD。

This is the largest difference between the encryption industry and the traditional business world: traditional companies fear losing their brand memory, and many encryption projects fear that users will remember too much。

Therefore, when a project is announced as a change of name, the market should ask not only what its new name is, but three questions:

What real capabilities or strategies does it add? Has its token economics changed? What's the old history that it wants the users to forget

IF THE NAME CHANGE IS ACCOMPANIED BY REAL PRODUCTS, REAL INCOME, REAL USERS AND CLEARER STRATEGIES, THEN IT MAY BE THE BEGINNING OF A NEW PHASE. BUT IF THE CHANGE OF NAME IS ONLY ACCOMPANIED BY CURRENCY EXCHANGE, HOT SPOTS, HAIR INCREASE AND K-LINE, IT IS PROBABLY JUST AN OLD GAME OF FINE PACKAGING。