Btw, I see CRED is already used for an alt called "Verify".
That was addressed in either the text of this blog or the comments I posted several months ago. I linked to my discussion with the founder of the Verify project, letting them know that we had reserved several CRED domains including cred.me before they announced publicly their intention to the use CRED as a token name. Anyway, I very much doubt that ERC-20 utility token ICO will be a significant ongoing venture. I’m not worried about it.
Also as I already mentioned, there is another project (in addition to Verify) using the CRED token name now.
That being said, and as much as I like the CRED name for a token for reasons discussed in the comments on this blog, I wish I could think of a more unique name for the token for this project which is as much of a naming coup d'état as Uncommons.
Something better matched to Uncommons and which emphasizes synergies of accumulation of knowledge that makes the Inverse Commons not succumb to the tragedy-of-the-commons which otherwise plagues democracy, governance, cooperatives, corporations, and nearly all forms of cooperative human organization. Eric S. Raymond had impressed me when he noted that open source (which is an inverse commons) was the only known engineering methodology that has a positive scaling law in that the more eyeballs and humans you add it to it, the better the quality, speed of development, maintenance, etc. for those facets that open source is well suited. Note open source isn’t suitable for all facets of design nor does it resolve politics, i.e. design-by-committee sucks. And from that his famous statement of Linus’ Law, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs (i.e. defects) are shallow.” Which is contrary to the normal Mythical Man Month quality of groupwise software development.
In an inverse commons, everyone’s share of the commons becomes more valuable by cooperating. This is same feature of the very important Thin Protocols concept that I provided some links for in the last section of a recent blog. The token name CRED doesn’t capture that notion.
The inverse commons has a network effect (i.e. grows more valuable the more people participate as depicted for the telephone network below) which isn’t ameliorated because centralized control is averted by decentralization of control with for example open source (i.e. anybody can fork it) or in our case to design a blockchain ledger which technologically resists centralization.
This also relates to the concepts of Anti-rival good and not a zero-sum game.
One idea are the synonyms for information, given that participation in information accumulation increases the value for all participants and relates to the Uncommons. Of those DOPE is probably the most catchy and controversial.
dope
/dōp/Submit
noun
noun: dope; plural noun: dopes
3.
INFORMAL
information about a subject, especially if not generally known.
"our reviewer will give you the dope on hot spots around the town"
adjectiveINFORMAL
adjective: dope
1.
very good.
"that suit is dope!"
Perhaps a better idea would be more technological relating to tapping into some synergistic, communal energy force. Ethereum has ETH for ether. HALO and FIBR aren’t quite what we want.
I appreciate the tricky dilemma between Oodles' more probable widespread appeal and catchiness than the more serious Uncommons. The ticker could be OODL, which stands out and would be memorable.
Actually Oodles could possibly be the token name instead of the project name. What do you think? Seems to hit the aims I am describing above for a word that conveys the network effect of growing more valuable with more participation. It seems to imply that there’s abundance for everyone (which there really is in humanity if we can toss aside the parasites and tragedy-of-the-commons).
A token named OODLES would be catchy and cause a lot of gossip. “What did you say, you will pay me ‘noodles’?” Lol! However, it doesn’t really associate with any concept of money, which by definition should be a finite resource.
A possible negative association though is the expectation that the currency is highly debased (money supply inflation) and thus not a good store-of-value. Yet remember Gresham’s law that bad money drives good money out of circulation. So indeed, we want the token to act as a lubricant on informational commerce, a speculation, and not an eternal claim on the future labor of others.
So actually OODLES conveys the wrong concept. We don’t want the proliferation of the quantity of money. Rather we want that the value of the money grows due to the network effect.
I actually prefer Uncommons for the project name as it is descriptively apropos, highly unique, and can be viewed with a serious intent.
Standing out in the sea of 100s of altcoins listed at coinmarketcap.com is becoming more difficult. Departing from the extant genus of naming might be a wise move. Yet I think I prefer CRED over OODLES for unit of money.
Brainstorm ideas include CLOUT, COG, ELUBE, EGAS, MERIT, AMPS, UNIGIT and FIEF.
However, it’s also tempting to discard Hyperdata and use only Uncommons for the project name, portal, and ledger technology name.
Looking at it now, from what you say, Hyperdata could be seen as superfluous.
The goal was to have a technological name to appeal to the FOMO (fear of missing out) on the next big technological paradigm shift. I don’t think ‘hyper’ carries the geek-envy novelty that it would have in 2015 for altcoins. There are already other projects with names that begin with ‘hyper’.
EDIT: to reiterate OODLES does not work as a token name. Need to choose between Uncommons or Oodles for the project name.
OODLES is more mass marketish. Uncommons is more descriptive of the concept. Uncommons might also work mass market, if people perceive it as “uncommon things which I do not find on Facebook.”
RE: Name YOUR decentralized social network?