[Discussion Series] Evolving the Gitcoin Brand: Naming our Protocols & Products

🧙 🧙‍♀️ Ideas and Open Discussion
6

Hi from supermodular.xyz !

(I hope it’s okay for me to chime in as an external stakeholder here)

I really like these two because they’re descriptive. Its completely obvious to me as a Dev what Base Protocol + Allocate Protocol are in the context of Gitcoin Stack. Descriptive = easy to understand = less learning curve.

For example, if the brand name is more evocative and memorable, the product name may be more functional and descriptive to clearly communicate the product’s value and purpose.

These are the types of names I think are the best for Gitcoin (which is an evocative/memorable name IMO!).

5 Likes
7

Oh and I forgot to say but I love Grants Stack as a name. It evokes “This is a software stack I can use to construct neat Grants stuff”.to the builder in me.

Incidently, I just saw this thread about OP Stack, and I realized that the OP strategy for L2s is very similar to Gitcoin’s (as I understand it) for democratic capital allocation.

Beyond the names, these are the parallels I see from understanding both the OP Stack/Grants Stack.

OP Stack positioning Inferred Grants Stack parallel
Optimisms 's OP Stack is going to COMPLETELY change the landscape of the #Ethereum L2 ecosystem If it’s successful, Gitcoins’ Grants Stack is going to COMPLETELY change the landscape of the DAO/democratic capital allocation ecosystem.
The OP Stack is one layer “more meta” than just being an L2 .The OP Stack is a scaffolding standard for ANY possible rollup construction The Grants Stack is one layer “more meta” than just being an Grants program. The Grants Stack is a scaffolding standard for ANY possible capital allocation construction
The OP Stack is a structure to modularize all components of an L2 into: 1. Standardized 2. Open source 3. Modules …for L2 Chains The Grants Stack is a structure to modularize all components of an Grants into: 1. Standardized 2. Open source 3. Modules …for any DAO
We need more devs, re-using the same codebases, for the ‘hardening power’ of open-source to take effect We need more devs, re-using the same codebases, for the ‘hardening power’ and network effects of open-source to take effect
With modularity, an L2 module can slip-n-out of any L2, without rugging the rest of the stack With modularity, an Grants module can slip-n-out of any Grants program, without rugging the rest of the stac
With the OP Stack, you can have an EVM Rollup that uses Fault Proofs (therefore, an Optimistic Rollup) But! You could swap out that Module for ZK-Prover, turning it into a ZK-rollup🤯 With the Grants Stack, you can have an Grants Program that uses Pairwise Quadratic Funding. But! You could swap out that Module for MACI Quadratic Voting, turning it into a QV capital allocation tool:exploding_head:

Idk exactly what the competitive positioning is for Grants stack, but this is what I see by watching things unfold. Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong, this is just my perspective as an outsider!

6 Likes
8

My top choices for Grants Protocol:

  • Alo Protocol
  • Allocate Protocol
  • Stream Protocol
  • Source Protocol

My top choices for Project Protocol:

  • Node Protocol
  • Project Hub Protocol
  • Base Protocol
  • Seed Protocol

I appreciate hearing this again (@kevin.olsen also brought this up in a live chat).

Would love to have more builders chiming into this convo! @DanieleSalatti @thelostone-mc please tag others and get them in here :slight_smile:

3 Likes
9

Thanks so much for putting this together @alexalombardo. I think we have a really strong framework for coming to a decision here given your efforts. I’m also biased but glad to see my suggestion for moving Grants Suite to Grants Stack was well received.

On protocol naming, my view is that we probably need to dive deeper into the why for each of them (and it sounds like that’s partly the goal of this thread which is great). In particular, many of the names (e.g. base / node / core) or (seed / roots / garden) define broader categories of thought that set the stage for a broader conversation about a ‘type’ of name. Is it going to be something that sounds more technical (e.g. node), or something that sounds more natural (e.g. seed)? Knowing this can then better help us pick ‘sets’ of names that fit together.

I know you’ve outlined the importance of ‘sets’ already, so I don’t want to belabor the point, but there are currently many names that don’t map to the same ‘set’ as a name in the other protocol category (e.g. Alo doesn’t really neatly cluster with Node for example). In addition, there are many names that wouldn’t mesh super well with ‘Passport’ which I think we’ve been intending to keep right?

In general we should always think about how we can build a narrative landscape (consider this a kind of world-building exercise) that is:

(a) authentic and true to who we are, meaning it ties back in some way to the ethos and view the community has of us;

(b) that deeply defines some set of internal principles we want to live by and intend to enact in the next 5 years; and

(c) is easy to expand upon / build lore around with the community over time.

To be more practical / tangible I’ll give some more thought to specific names and come back to edit this post later, but first I want to mention some web3 names that I think are very strong in terms of the above framing.

  • MetaLabel – Inventive, but allows for the co-creation of a totally new category of ideas that ties back to the core thesis of the product.

  • Supermodular – Descriptive, but still elegant and deeply ties back to the concepts at hand, building systems that are positive-sum and help others as they scale.

  • Juicebox – Descriptive but also evocative, playful, and gives a sense of why it might actually be enjoyable to raise capital to get the energy you need to build with friends.

  • Moloch (DAO) – Evocative, with a rich lore that has been now taken up (by Gitcoin and others) as a key framing for the kinds of coordination problems we’re solving for in web3.

  • Optimism – Simple, descriptive (optimistic rollups) yet evocative and striking at the heart of the broader techno-optimist vision their team has for the world.

and to throw in one that’s also plant based but a bit more off the beaten path:

  • Radicle – Speaks to the kind of ethos (radical change) their core team wants to see, but also to the way that this happens by setting the very foundations for growth as a radicle does in nature.

Right now none of the names listed feel like they hit the mark for me the same way as these names from close collaborators do, and I think that’s kind of expected as we only had about an hour to go through and brainstorm right before the holidays. I’ll give some thought on my end too and I think the framework that’s been outlined will be super helpful in guiding this further.

2 Likes
10

Thanks for getting this going @alexalombardo

Grant Stack
I’ve heard @kevin.olsen mention Grant Stack and I’ve started using it in my conversations.
This makes sense cause we are offering a protocol stack which folks can build upon / use to build layers on top of it.

Grants Protocol

I would lean towards Allocate / Alo

Stream → traditionally refers to streaming music / funds aka like drips and that’s not what the grants protocol is offering. So I don’t think
Pollen → already used for defi project. Would cause confusion
Plurality → this doesn’t speak to me :stuck_out_tongue:

Allocate Protocol while the simple and easy to understand.
Alo does have a nice ring to it so I’m split between the two

Project Protocol

Honestly I’d say Base protocol as it’s the foundation structure

It makes sense when I tell myself
The grant stack offers the community a means to decide:

  • what constitutes as it’s base (provided by Base Protocol)
  • which sections of the base needs to be allocated funds to strength the community (powered by the Allocate Protocol)
2 Likes
11

Appreciate these comments and want to bring up a few additional points.

@ceresstation I really like the additional considerations you outline for us around worldbuilding, authenticity, principles and expansiveness/lore.

With regard to the why for each name - it was originally asked that people who write in names also give their reasoning, which we still are missing for quite a number of names in the brainstorm (I too am at fault for this and will work on getting some why’s in there) - so I encourage everyone to contribute to the “why” section of the Notion brainstorm.

Since these protocols are being named as part of our immediate Gitcoin ecosystem - essentially, our “portfolio,” - attributes of each name would ideally align with our brand characteristics - hence why it was important to discuss these prior to naming:

  • Knowledgeable not pretentious
  • Relatable not casual
  • Dynamic not brash
  • Intentional not chaotic
  • Generous not overbearing
  • Open not reckless
  • Optimistic not naive
  • Delightful not silly

To @owocki’s point, I think it’s important to recognize we our brand name that is separate from our protocol names (unlike some of the aforementioned web3 brands, like Optimism and Juicebox, whose protocol and brand names are shared.)

I’d encourage us to think about how these all fit together, how the protocols share our brand values and personality traits, but also embody their own, which were also shared as part of the brand positioning work:

Grants Protocol:

  • Informative not overkill
  • Flexible not confusing
  • Effective not overpromising
  • Intuitive not lazy
  • Practical not boring

Project Protocol:

  • Structured not rigid
  • Functional not cold
  • Adaptable not wishy washy
  • Intuitive not lazy
  • Practical not boring

I think a lot of the points raised here come down to brand and product positioning, so I encourage everyone to think about these names in that context.

Nowhere in the above do we specifically highlight technical or natural - but they are softly alluded to throughout the traits.

Additionally, visual elements will complement these names - the most recent work can be found in the Community Call takeover presentation here, which also brings to life these traits visually and gives a sense of how we might do the same with the protocols.

Lastly, I personally dont have the context around the naming process for Passport, but there does seem to be alignment around keeping the name. That said, without that context I don’t know if I can justify holding ourselves to names that best fit. Plus, these protocols while modular can also stand alone. While we don’t want Passport to feel like the one that doesn’t belong, I don’t know if we need to be beholden to the style.

Really enjoying these comments and looking forward to more feedback!

12

Hey all - after chatting with @ceresstation yesterday about world building and naming the protocols based on a conceptual framework that marries everything together, I realized that we may be able to use the Quadratic Lands (QL) as this conceptual framework to guide protocol naming and wanted to share this perspective in case it provokes some new thinking.

If Passport is a Citizen’s “entry visa” to the QL then Project Protocol is our…(just spitballing here - some of these names I would veto but including for the sake of brainstorming)

  • Base(camp) (still aligned enough I think)
  • Home
  • Corner
  • Neighbourhood
  • Casa
  • Habitat
  • Domicile
  • Stoop
  • Tower
  • Castle
  • Lodge
  • Pad
  • Abode
  • Hut
  • Box
  • Hovel
  • Range

And Grants Protocol is a place that resources and/or nourishes our needs. It is our…

  • Banq
  • Mint
  • Treasury
  • Source (I like this one but it’s already a DeFi protocol)
  • Spring
  • Well
  • Pool
  • Fountain (this is also taken)
  • Gardin
  • Geyser
  • Market

Some other places that are less about physically resourcing us but more about emotionally/socially resourcing us

  • Square
  • Coop
  • Community Hub
  • Park
1 Like
13

I hadn’t thought explicitly about the quadratic lands as a conceptual landscape but it’s a cool idea + makes in the context of the collection of terminology we’ve used historically:

If we go that route I’d love to figure out ways to dive a bit deeper on the exact terms we’re proposing (e.g. I’m not sure hovel or abode will really vibe / something like market or pool might be too generalizable) but I’m interested in the path itself. I do like Coop, or something that leverages co (since we’re co-funding, co-curating, co-attesting etc).

2 Likes
14

Ya I’m liking this direction too and am curious what @alexalombardo thinks of using the Quadratic Lands as a conceptual framework for naming.

Something that @ceresstation suggested in a DM is to rework the way we use “aqueduct” (as I know that was a product we tried but I think are officially sunsetting - maybe @kyle can say more.)

Aqueducts are a technology that carries an important resource for livelihood (water) from a specific source to a specific destination. It seems fitting

So one name I’d throw in for Grants Protocol is (Gitcoin) Aqueduct.
Would also like Reservoir but they are an existing OS NFT project.

I’m not sure if co-op protocol really aligns with the product’s future vision and would like @nategosselin’s opinion here if we’re considering this name. It’s my understanding that we’re creating a foundational funding allocation lego.

Project protocol

If we furthered the conceptual framework of a city for Project Protocol, then in might opinion, it could be likened to some kind of central point for to house an individual and/or an individual’s private information but ALSO it allows you to plug into different resources so that’s where the house or home analogy breaks down. We might still experiment with the concept of home or house but wondering if there’s another word that denotes a “plugging in” of sorts.

Would love to hear @michelle_ma’s and @kyle’s opinions here.

I don’t know if I like these but maybe it will spark more ideas here:

  • Grid
  • Module
  • Infra
  • Biblio
  • Centre

Imo Base also still works well.

15

Loving the direction this is going and appreciate the idea of a framework. I think QL is fine as a frame of reference… But if we’re going to do that, then I think we need to commit to this idea, and educating around what it means. I’ve seen the term used in various ways, so I’d love for us to all align on a narrative.

What does QL mean to us? Is that how we see a better world, more than it actually being Quadratic Lands (e.g., does it matter if we’re talking about future mechanisms that dont involve QF/QV)? The protocols will live on beyond the short term - how would we describe this concept to someone in the future?

Then I think we’d really need to define what each protocol is in the QL framework - so we say Grants Protocol would be our source of support, a lifeforce; and then Project would be the home, the hub - is this 100% accurate? For Project i feel like node is more accurate because its one point in a network. For Grants I feel like it’s not the lifeforce, its the mechanism for coordinating it.

What i like about these names is that they are infrastructure concepts - and our protocols are infrastructures. Although some of these names are what gets built on top of the infrastructure. I’d like to see us go more the route that these are the rails, or the tunnels, not the trains (those are the dApps).

So, for Grants Protocol, instead of Square-esque words, maybe something more related to infrastructure:

  • metro
  • municipal
  • groundwork
  • buttress
  • pylon
  • totem
  • lattice
  • trellis

I actually love Aqueduct - do we think that will resonate with developers?

Some others for Project Protocol could be

  • Cornerstone
  • Keystone
  • Linchpin
  • Crossroads
  • Junction
  • Pillar

Also, side note, but if we went that route I love the concept of Blueprint for Grants Stack

That said, these feel man-made vs. the more natural and therefore feel slightly in opposition to some of the brand creative - so I’d love @birdsoar’s input here as well.

Some that could fall in between:

  • Cloverleaf: NORTH AMERICAN: a junction of roads intersecting at different levels with connecting sections forming the pattern of a four-leaf clover.
  • Hatch: an entryway but also the idea of birth, hatching projects

We also haven’t talked about names as action verbs instead of nouns. Hatch could fall into both. Others:

  • Tend: Like tending a garden, nurturing; gardens are also a source of sustenance (for Grants)
  • Fare: Also sustenance, but also to fare well (for Grants)
  • Spring: A source of sustenance but also to spring into action
  • Vault: Place to keep valuables/money safe but also leaping to success
  • Shelter: Like a home but also keeping safe (for Project)
  • Harbor: Like a place that shelters boats, where they come in and out of/connection to land. from the storm but also to harbor someone is to keep them safe (for Project)
  • Fort: Like a place for safekeeping but also short for fortify (for Project)

Other comments:

  • Co it makes me think of Coordinape and I know they’re going to be leaning into the use of Co more.
  • Some of these names (Basecamp, Mint, Box, Square) are used by major tech companies so I suggest we avoid just for brand recognition/ownership purposes
  • I don’t like abode but i like Bode, an allusion to abode but also ties to boding well

Definitely will keep thinking on this but overall liking the direction…

16

Hi all, I was discussing branding direction with @ceresstation over the weekend, and I did some brainstorming as well.

Really resonate with the points made above about finding a conceptual framework like QL to ground our protocols. I feel that the best brand names lend themselves versatility and room for imagination.

Some results from my brainstorm for Grants Stack:

  • topia - latin meaning: place
    The suffix approach aligns with our core mission as it allows people to envision their own world that they’d like to build with our tools, ie: utopia, ecotopia, technotopia, etc.
    Other variations for consideration include topias (for plurality), or co-topia (for co-creation, co-existence, coordination, etc)
  • Copia - latin meaning: abundance, multitude. From co(m)- (“together”) +‎ ops, opis (“power, ability, resources”) +‎ -ia (“abstract noun suffix”).
    The meaning perfectly aligns with our mission, and reinforces ideas related to reservoirs, pluralism, co-existence, etc.

The above names suggest invitations to new worlds to me, and this would tie in our current metaphor with Passport, which we can keep extending to other protocols as well. If Passport is the ticket to another realm, then Project Protocol can be the landmarks, and Grants Protocol the infrastructure that connects these landmarks for the Passport holder to access.

2 Likes
17

The standing definition is: the place where the laws of economics have been rewritten to support the commons & ImpactDAOs

1 Like
18

Yes, would also love to hear from LH.
I think that if we framed our visuals based on nature & man coming together to make a flourishing world, it could work. Especially with LH’s suggestion to have QL more lunar/solarpunk themed.

19

I really love this QL framework as an anchor point for the naming — it feels like it opens up a lot of design possibilities.

If we go this route, though, I think we should try to steer more towards solarpunk / future cities / biome-style names as opposed to terms that feel more like industrial infrastructure.

Grants protocol as a place that resources / nourishes feels super powerful. The food-oriented names are jumping out at me:

  • Fountain
  • Spring
  • Garden
  • Larder
  • Provisions
  • Orchard

Loving this new direction overall!

3 Likes
20

+1
my mind went to some of the primary flora in the “hanging gardens of babylon” , eg:

names like Olea, Quince, Pyrus, Ficus, Phoenix, Vitis are some of the ones that stand out to me!

1 Like
21

I agree!

On a somewhat related note:

I like the idea of a fruit bearing tree…which is a visual we’ve used before to communicate what it is we’re doing.

Just spent some time looking into the World Tree (which is a concept replicated across many cultures) which could be cool.

Arbor Protocol

Also like Orchard.
Unfortunately Fountain is already taken…i think that would have been a good one. Garden is also taken. Coincidentally, DeFi protocol communities seem to really like nature lol.

3 Likes
22

I dont think we have decided to sunset Aquaducts… I think we just didnt actually get them off the ground yet (though we have some commitments for Aqueducts that may materialize).

The original Gitcoin Aqueduct was described and built to solve the Uniswap problem - “How might we convince Uniswap to donate 5% of their treasury to public goods for Gitcoin Grantees?” The solution was go back in time and have them commit before their treasury was worth billions (Though Badger did this, and then backed out of the deal… which is whole other story). The thinking was to find a simple and easy way that DAO/protocols could commit 5% of their treasury early in their project lifecycle and have those stream to a matching pool (technically two) to be used for public goods.

So, an aqueduct helps direct some % of funds to a public goods matching pool that grow’s that ecosystem and Public goods more broadly.

I really the idea of working QL back into the narrative. The message was always so powerful. Grant’s stack also really resonates given its simplicity and optionality. it makes me want to learn more… “Oooh! whats in the grants stack? does it have funding? Does it have a direct grants program? etc.”

As for each of the protocols, I am rather impartial on what we call the protocols themselves (and have been fine with Grants Protocol (with round manager, and grants explorer as our first dApps), Project Protocol (with Grants Hub as the dApp)

1 Like
23

Oh I really like Arbor Protocol

1 Like
24

Hi everyone, it’s great to see so much discussion happening around names. I’ve been leaning into autonomy on this particular subject, and want to float ideas as our discussion evolves.

There are some excellent points above around creating compelling names in parallel to some of our close collaborators. I agree with that approach. Names can be unique, descriptive, and playful or serious (depending on context). Achieving all of this in one word is possible, and where we probably want to land.

Before diving into to specific names, I’m thinking through this conceptually and want to share ideas around how we can leverage the evolving brand as a framework.

To me, Quadratic Lands is solely a community-building piece of lore. Although the mechanism of QF is deeply rooted in our product suite, the lands themselves are about being a utopia. In contrast, our products and protocols are about providing the structure and support required to make that utopia come true.

If we look at this from the lens of the evolving brand visuals that our designs reflect, we already have a framework for making conceptual brand decisions:

31
311920×1080 53.9 KB

I acknowledge that this is a work in progress, and iirc @Etovardesign has ideas for how to translate this framework with a product focus.

Still, it’s worth filtering the name options through this framework to see where things land - is the name futuristic? optimistic? earth-aligned? regenerative? etc. All of this helps us relate with the biomemetic magic theme.

25

Here is a refresher on biomemetic magic, the thinking behind it and how it might translate to product (the core idea is mutuality):

21
211920×1080 261 KB

22
221920×1080 449 KB

1 Like