After much thought, I realized I was trying to make it too abstract (see also the minified quoted thoughts below). Users do not relate to these abstract concepts. For them they use the internet and want access to the goods and services thereof and they don't even think that much about using money on the internet because to a large extent access is free (advertising business model). In terms of monetization of the internet, the closest conceptual good I can think of which means something to users and is also related to access, social actions and merits, is this new name I will propose:
clickz
I registered:
| clickz.cash | ($25) |
| clickz.click | ($9) |
| clickz.space | ($2) |
| clickz.site | ($4) |
I have not been able to think of a more direct to the point name which can capture payment, access, virtual quantification, network computing related, social, instantaneous, fungible unit, and some conceptualization of an autonomous, peer-to-peer interaction, decentralized, end-to-end principled.
If you ask any person what clicks are, they know immediately. It means something to everyone. It may sound odd to store clicks, but in effect that is what you want is to be able to click and not be denied access. It captures solidly the difference between the utility and limitations of physical money and virtual decentralized, permission-less money (clicking is an autonomous activity that can communicate around the globe in milliseconds). And as a seller or social figure on the internet, you want more clicks to your profile or site.
Click has another meaning as well which also fits appropriately for the above use case. As for the relationship to block chain 2.0 scaling and programmable block chain, the following definition of clicks seems apropos which relates to synergy, clarity/coherence, and being mutually in sync.
informal
become suddenly clear or understandable.
"finally it clicked what all the fuss had been about"
quickly become friendly or intimate.
"we just clicked, and I found myself falling in love"
become successful or popular.
"I don't think this issue has clicked with the voters"
Note I do realize 'clickz' is not as technophile as 'ion', and even though you might think 'ion' is more brandable just consider the other coin names 'quark' and 'quantum'. I think the meaning is most important. The name 'ion' implies some electric charge which is stored and can be zapped, but only for those engineers who have any clue what an ion is. Most people think of ion probably as salt, lion, or just blank non-understanding. Also I am not really getting any meaning from ion that applies to block chain 2.0 other than the connotation of rapid transfer (discharge). The name 'clickz' will ring a bell in everyone's mind. Even though there will be different ideas of the applicability, I doubt anyone will have blank non-understanding. The average person will think this has something to do with clicking, either internet related or as in becoming more in sync. The investor or even technophile will understand this has something to do with internet traffic, hive action, and synergy. The block chain 2.0 proponent will likely see some veracity to the explanation of meaning relating to keeping the contracts in sync or clicking together.
I am nearly certain that Clickz has more direct meaning to your average person than Bitcoin, for those who have heard of neither. And I think Clickz is much less likely to feared as related to fraud and theft. Clicking is a benign, non-threatening activity. Clickz is much more friendly than Bitcoin. Just look at the coming into sync definition as well as the reality that clicking is a friendly social activity. Bitcoin is associated with scams, drugs, Silk Road, stolen coins, failed centralized exchanges, etc.. Of course eventually Clickz could be so associated if we don't do a better engineering job of creating the paradigms to be more sure that events are a much smaller proportion of the use cases. And the way to do that is to make microtransactions very popular. (Block chain scaling and faster TX/s also makes decentralized exchanges more realistic and I believe there may be other technical ways to strongly motivate users to not let centralized servers hold their private keys)
Thanks, I thought also of veritable, known, note, scribe.
When I think about what a global, internet money really is, then it is really your fungible share of the collective set of values of (virtual) society. Thus I propose a new name:
quotum
It is not a word that most people know. I was a bit surprised that I remembered it as the more positive version of quota (where quota implies a limit and quotum doesn't). Also I believe quotum normally implies the portion within a group or community perhaps akin to its implications in forming a quorum.
The name lacks enthusiasm.
Turning my thoughts away from the universal and systemically coherent quality of the fungible bases for exchange values, to an essential good of this fungible basis, I continue to think of fungibility of exchange as a catalyst for change, more than just a lubricant removing friction, and stored up as potential energy to ignite a process. Thus I propose a name from an existing coin that appears to have died:
spark
Seems that brings me right back to:
zing
oomph
Fungible units are really potential energy. When they are exchanged for non-fungible values the energy becomes kinetic.
Other than the swiftness of 'zing', those names don't directly connote what is unique about decentralized ledgers.
But how would the advantages of decentralized ledgers be presented to an average person such they would even care? The main quality they will be drawn to is the immediacy and lack of tsuris due to not needing to enroll in a bank account nor register. Thus any name implying swiftness might be capturing the only quality of decentralized money that they care about. The other quality would be global utility, and any name which implies it is for general use on the internet automatically signals that trait.