Toxicity of Crypto and NFT Terms

Started by Domaining News, Mar 18, 2023, 02:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Domaining NewsTopic starter

I recently stumbled upon an article shared by Lox at Namepros discussing the need for a rebranding of Web3. According to, terms like Crypto and NFT have become toxic and some companies in these industries are considering a rebrand.

These types of circumstances often arise after a bear market follows a rapid bull market. There are a couple of factors at play that require further examination.

Firstly, the general public still doesn't fully understand crypto or NFTs. Secondly, we are still in the early stages of this game, and there may be numerous booms and busts over the next decade.

The article includes quotes from various individuals who address the issue of making these innovations relevant to the masses.

Dickon Laws, the global head of innovation services at advertising agency Ogilvy, remarked:

"No one has successfully made Web3 accessible and relevant to the masses. There hasn't been enough effort to understand how it can solve problems in the 'mass' market or enhance people's lives."

Laws also pointed out that the crypto "gold rush" failed to resonate with the general public because it did not address problems that everyday individuals could comprehend and relate to.

This rings true when I speak to friends who work as florists, dance teachers, construction workers, and so on. They have no idea about these technologies and show no interest in them.

Another individual quoted in the article is Alexandre Tsydenkov, the founder of the NFT Paris conference. He stated, "Everyone says 'digital collectible' works, but do they? I don't know. I hear some people mention digital collectibles, but not as frequently as NFTs. Is it a better branding than NFT? I don't know."

Now, as I mentioned, I discovered this article through Lox at Namepros, and there were some interesting comments over there. @DomainBarracksRob is well-versed in all things Web3, and he made some valid counterpoints to the article.

He stated:

"As someone involved in Web3, I call BS on this!

Whenever there are volatile markets, such issues arise.

Stocks are not scams, but throughout the decades, there have been plenty of scams involving fake pinklist OTC and shady individuals creating fraudulent companies. Scammers will scam in any industry.

Sure, I've heard arguments on both sides of this notion, but most of what's being said comes from people on LinkedIn, which is less 'degen' in nature. True degens exist on multiple platforms. This article is simply trying to fuel the marketing beast! Yes, some people want to change terms they don't like, but the community that has built it won't stop calling Non-Fungible Tokens NFTs, haha!

WEB3, DEFI, and NFTs are far from dead! NFT Twitter is vibrant, active, and constantly building, 24/7. Those who have never been part of a Discord channel, bought crypto, operated a digital wallet, or lack the know-how shouldn't be able to speak on Web3. This isn't me attacking you; you shared an article, and I'm saying it's crazy to create more fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the space...

New Web3 companies are emerging and will continue to do so...

As for the blockchain thing... LOL! Blockchain is alive and well, and people still love it... Regarding the name change to RIOT Platforms... that makes sense... why would anyone want to compete with, LOL? They even rebranded their new custodial wallet to 'DeFi Wallet' this past week."

The article also mentioned how some projects, like National Geographic, abandoned their NFT plans due to criticism on social media. However, other projects remain unaffected by the current sentiment.

Furthermore, the article criticized the use of the word blockchain, but I don't believe it's going anywhere, though I may be mistaken.