Safe name brand poll

[davidpbrown]

It’s not a con, if the data is genuinely safe.

Still, you got one point right; SAFE is better as a name … anything that is a noun works for naming the concept that is “the thing”. Safe is an adjective that requires also Network. Which is why I queried that needs The or A but it’s not better as a noun for needing those.

As above

@JimCollinson

it is desirable—and powerful—to have an unprotectable name, and for it not to feel like a brand, a tech company, or a new app.

SAFE is a basic… and by rights it’ll only be the applications that people talk of. Like the machine code on top you put your OS of choice.

Also a brand is easily attacked… an idea, not so much!

Those silly people you suggest will get hostile, likely will be the ones slow to get the idea of what and why it exists anyhow… and to be hoped they will find themselves using it without knowing - or needing to talk about it with a name.

Simply, the future will be that the application they use, is safe or is not safe.

Edit: also, the generic concept of being safe, plays directly into what the product is - so, makes marketing and promotion of the idea, far easier. If you barf random characters into a cold boot of an idea, it is much harder to sell… as with that suggestion of SAIF.

[jbash]

It’s not a con, if the data is genuinely safe.

It doesn’t matter whether it is a con. It matters that it looks like a con.

Unless you get a personal introduction from somebody they trust, the first time somebody hears of a project, you have about 5 or 10 seconds to convince that person to learn more. If they go so far as to look at it, you may have a minute or two to convince them that it’s for real.

If what they see in that minute or two has the feel of unrealistic hype, you will lose them.

People here may honestly believe the “we’re going to change everything and be the new foundation of the entire Internet” stuff. It may even be true. That is totally irrelevant to the question of naming or to anything else primarily concened with first impressions, or with building generalized perceptions among people who haven’t bothered to research things.

As for the rest, personally, I think it’s a very interesting project. If it succeeds, it will be Important™. It may be the first thing to actually get to “minimum viable product” in the radical decentralization space, because the minimum viable product for what it’s trying to do is very large indeed. I’ve been hoping that something would get to that point for probably two decades, and I haven’t seen many, if any, that had as good a chance. I think that kind of decentralization could in fact be world changing. So I’m about the most sympathetic audience you are ever going to find.

However, “world changing” is not the same as “will totally sweep away everything that existed before”. And I will tell you that, even to me, stuff like “the future will be that the application they use, is safe or is not safe” makes you sound like a crazy fanboy. And the tone of much of the rest of the stuff you find on here is the same.

To a less sympathetic audience, which means 99 percent of the world, that kind of hype sounds completely insane. Like a hallucination… or a con job.

[TylerAbeoJordan]

Personally, I’m not very concerned about the name at all. This is because the network is a platform, not an app. And it will be the apps created for the network that drive adoption of the network. So Safe is just a foundation -and the only people who need to “get it” in the beginning are individuals and companies that want to build upon it. These later people will come up with many many brands and will market the tar out of their products and services. All of which will drive the network to new heights.

That’s how I see it at least. Whatever the brand of Safe is, it’s only a tiny first step in the construction of the network.

[neo]

I doubt anyone feels things are 100% safe when correct usage of safe is used.

safe house? Movies show they are anything but.
Safe - as in bank safe, wall safe, floor safe
safe as banks
police keep you safe
and 100s of other times we use safe

And none of them are absolutely safe
So no misrepresentation saying the Safe Network keeps data safe because society understand safe is a relative term and additionally understand there is always exceptions

[jlpell]

@JimCollinson

we are promoting the use of Safe rather than SAFE is in last week’s dev update . It’s not a re-brand (does anyone have the appetite for that right now?), it’s still an acronym (and both a noun and an adjective ), and we’ll still promote the strapline “Secure Access For Everyone

Looking at the previous rendition aka “SAFE Network” you proposed a change to title case via “Safe Network” which is a logical transformation for presenting both words in a consistent manner.

SAFE Network => Safe Network

The alternative consistent transformation would be to change the word Network to all caps, ie.

SAFE Network => SAFE NETWORK

I think the all caps version looks pretty good too and could be used to good effect in graphics, memes, and merch.

[Nigel]

@jlpell

I think the all caps version looks pretty good too and could be used to good effect in graphics, memes, and merch.

I like it too but the point of Safe Network more specifically was to be consistent and more readable across the board with other naming, such as SafeID. If we went all caps then things such as SAFEID become less readable.

[jlpell]

I wasn’t saying all caps instead of title case, but as a complementary representation for certain situations. Sometimes all caps goes better with images when making posters or t-shirts etc. Title case has better readability /flow in written works (as you pointed out with SafeID)…

[JimCollinson]

Aye, this is the case for the logo lockup on the Safe Network site, and in apps like the Safe Network app.

If we concatenate is as SafeNetwork then we lose the flexibility to do this (and have to redesign this lockup) and it doesn’t split over two lines when needed etc etc.

[nevel]

For reference…

For outsiders we will be 1 of them (just another network). If that’s the goal, then Safe()Network is fine.

[jlpell]

@JimCollinson

Aye, this is the case for the logo

Yes, and it looks good that way.

@JimCollinson

If we concatenate is as SafeNetwork then we lose the flexibility

That was the point I was trying to make. The two words version in Title Case and all caps complement each other in a natural way and give you added flexibility. In the graphic you attached, you intuitively used title case in the sentence description whereas the logo stands on its own in a logical way.

I might add that you could have flipped the representation and it still would be grammatically correct and look ok, just not as good.

[TylerAbeoJordan]

Two days left in the poll and we have ourselves a horse race! neck and neck … it may be a photo-finish!