Forget “Great Reset”. Those involved in the “crypto assets,” “blockchain,” “digital assets,” and “distributed ledger technology” industries who attended the Davos conference under the shadow of the “FTX” crisis are calling for a grand rebranding.
*Great Reset: The theme of the 2021 Davos Conference. It means a review of all systems.
Doubts about Davos
In the wake of FTX’s demise, the terms “crypto assets” and “NFTs” have become more provocative to skeptics who dismiss the technology as impractical bullshit. It is comparable to the term “blockchain” during the 2018 ICO (initial coin offering) bubble.
Around the same time, there was also the infamous news that a company called Long Island Iced Tea was changing its name to Long Blockchain Corp.
New terminology was debated at the Davos meeting, while business leaders persuaded legislators of the need for constructive regulation and tried to convince leaders of mainstream companies.
Many readers will find these arguments distasteful. Some might see it as a power-grabbing move toward centralization.
No wonder. Davos is often criticized for its hypocrisy, hollow debate and elitism, with those who believe cryptocurrencies and blockchain have the potential to transform the already unfair global economy.
Even if you don’t have conspiratorial suspicions about World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab’s idea of a “Great Reset,” the existing system’s exploitative, centralized power structure It is understandable to have concerns about many of the participating companies and organizations in Davos whose business models are to survive.
However, the term “cryptocurrency” is now a speculation with some crypto advocates professing to “Have Fun Staying Poor” and others also calling it a “token casino”. It is clear that it is widely associated with social aspects.
The fact that the term is offensive to politicians and business owners hinders the efforts of crypto industry leaders.
Finding a term that doesn’t sound too weird or scary doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. Look for words that describe ideas that are more universally accepted and favorably received.
Brynly Llyr, Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets at the WEF, called the “decentralized system” an accurate depiction of the technology’s capabilities and without the risk associated with negative associations with crypto culture. ” is proposed.
Some have suggested simply using “blockchain.” Companies that want to leverage blockchain to address their corporate needs will find it more receptive.
The concern is that it’s reminiscent of the “permissioned” blockchains that were once favored in the business world but never delivered real value because they weren’t decentralized.
However, with many companies now deploying their Web3 strategy on permissionless blockchains such as Ethereum, the resurgence of “blockchain” may not be such a bad thing.
The problem with terminology goes beyond the negative image of “crypto assets.” There are other terms that lack precision and important nuances.
For example, “token”. Commodity tokens like Ethereum (ETH) that underpin public blockchains, tokens as a store of value like Bitcoin (BTC), payment tokens like USD coin (USDC), and scarce digital assets. Tokens include different types, up to the symbolic NFT.
All of these are often talked about under the label of “cryptocurrency (crypto assets, virtual currency)”, but they have strengthened the relationship with the conventional way of thinking such as “assets” and “currencies”, and have become legal and It has a different political meaning.
Such inaccuracies create problems when industry players discuss terms of service with each other, and even with politicians and non-crypto related companies.
“Too often it just doesn’t mesh. You get arguments that apply to one area but not to all others,” said David Treat, blockchain lead at Accenture. (David Treat) said.
What Treat wants is “to be able to represent the interplay of identity, money and tokenization of items, limited to just one myopic factor, missing a broader and more important discussion. There is no “no” term.
Obsessing over terminology may be pointless at a time when it’s most important to think about how to prevent the kind of cheating that caused FTX’s bankruptcy.
But compliance officers tell banks to suspend services to any entity associated with “crypto assets” (which literally includes Microsoft, Starbucks, and even big bank BNY Mellon). Clarifying the terminology is essential, given the reports that it has instructed
But who decides?
There is no central marketing department or chief brand officer who can decide how the industry should be branded. The market decides which term to use.
In other words, for now, there is no choice but to use “crypto assets”.
｜Translation and editing: Akiko Yamaguchi, Takayuki Masuda
｜Original: Bad Vibes from the Word ‘Crypto’ Have Some Calling for a Rebrand