Personally I'm okay with the name. I like to call them Uncle Pep Pep coins.
But it seems SO many are not.
I understand re-branding is not something to be done lightly, but I do think it is possible and could have benefits, especially if it came with something like a mint while encrypted for casuals update.
Honestly I'm too new here to be talking shit, I just want the best for Pep Peps, and I feel like no one talks about it even though it is number 3 or whatever.
I understand that there are a lot of risks associated with re-branding, but
we are still so early into the game that its the best time to do so if we choose to brand. Something like PTP to emphasize the Peer to Peer would be alright as well.
I would much prefer to brand our coin and differentiate ourselves by emphasizing the major attraction of our coin, that it is the FIRST long term energy efficient crypto currency out there. People will eventually get coin fatigue in the future and there's going to be so many different coins out there. And more coming out in the future.
Sunny, your statement of "our central marketing message from the beginning. But I think, peer-to-peer (i.e. decentralization) is the main innovation of cryptocurrency, having it in the name shouldn't be such a bad thing." is only good if there is only one coin in existence. But there are so many different flavors of coins out there. People already associate Bitcoin with P2P.
We have a super crazy awesome unique selling point and that should be the strength that we market.
Something like ECOCoin will immediately tell them that we are ecologically friendly and that sets us apart. Peer-To-Peer does nothing to differentiate us from the other Bitcoins because they are all Peer-To-Peer (that's the nature of Bitcoin itself). People will think....ECO and step back and think....wait a second....how?
(bolded by me for emphasis).
Yes I agree completely - I started a discussion about this here: (I actually propose launching a new coin called Ecocoin based on PPC)