Let's Talk About the Flashstake Brand #MentalMining

Last week, Blockzero Labs presented a plan to revitalize and improve the Flashstake project by focusing on five fundamental upgrades to the protocol.

During the several weeks of working on this proposal leading up to the article, the Blockzero Council had many discussions on how best to move forward. While the Council found consensus on most topics, one topic in particular was more challenging to navigate: the Flashstake brand.

Today, we are coming to the community to have a transparent conversation about the Flashstake brand and how best to position the project to be the industry leader in time-based DeFi protocols.

Two Paths Forward

In the article, we referenced the upgraded Flash system as “V3”. While this can continue to be how we referenced the updated protocol, we have two paths in front of us.

Path #1 | Continue

Continue the Flash brand. Stay the course. Own our story, and push the project forward with the current branding/naming in place.

Path #2 | Reset

Reset the Flash brand. Clear the charts. Reimagine the design, and push the project forward with a completely new set of branding/naming.

Pros and Cons

When the Blockzero Council doesn’t unanimously agree with something, it is sometimes because there are very polarizing opinions on the subject — extreme in both directions. That was not the cast for this topic.

Rather, all Council members were able to clearly view both the pros and cons of each path we could take and the possible implications of each. Here are just a few of the items we discussed.

Resources

If we were to reset the brand, there would likely be a few weeks needed (at the minimum), to find an alternative brand/design that we all agree upon. While the core of the code would all still be usable, we would need to redesign the site, Dapp, and Flashstats page.

This could be a very fun and inclusive opportunity, and could also be done at the same time as the protocol upgrade, but we must acknowledge the additional energy/resources this would take.

History

If we were to reset the brand, since the v3 token is to be airdropped, we could reset the history of the project. This includes everything from clearing the price chart history, to (possibly) distancing ourselves from any previous negative narrative around the project.

However, many counters to this point of above can be found in this article that was brought to our attention by Anthony: The Ultimate Guide to Successfully Rebranding in 2021

One of the counter-arguments in particular states:

“Covering Up a Crisis — whether you’re working against persistent internal issues or fending off bad press, a rebrand isn’t the answer. Most consumers and employees are smart enough to see right through your rebrand and recognize it for what it is — a cover-up.”

Transparent and experimentation have been core to the Blockzero brand since the beginning. To try and avoid our past could be antithetical to this belief.

DeFi Exposure

For reasons not known to us, many of the industry-leading DeFi websites refused to list or acknowledge the Flashstake protocol. When we asked why, we were given very generic and inconclusive reasoning.

While the Flashstake V3 still follows the original and core vision of Flashstake to create the time travel of money, this upgrade does make some pretty large fundamental changes to the original protocol.

One, in particular, is the ability to both buy + sell directly through the protocol — positioning V3 as a true DEX that people are familiar with.

For this reason, it is possible (but not certain) that a new brand would allow us to clearly delineate ourselves from V2 — therefore increasing our chances of getting listed on these websites.

Important to note, it is also possible that we could also achieve the above goals (getting more listing/exposure) by letting these websites know of the fundamental V3 updates.

Mental Mining

This topic is a Mental Mining campaign and we want to hear your thoughts on this subject.

If you would like to join in on the debate, we will be holding real-time discussions through our #MentalMining Discord channel.

Once you have fully formulated and solidified your thoughts, you can post directly on this post to earn Mental Mining credits.

10 Likes

I would stick to the old brand.
I think there is one huge disadvantage of rebranding and that’s time. If we rebrand we have to come up with a new name new token name, new graphics new website and so on. This will take a lot of time and delay the launch of this new flash.
I think speed is very important in Defi especially now that we can see that others are using very similar concept to what we do.
I don’t think that rebranding is something that is worth spending our time on. I also think that the optics of looking like we are flipflopping between projects and that we are covering up “Failure” could be a real problem. Yes if someone looks under the hood they will realize it’s not the case, but how many people will?

1 Like

We should keep the brand same and go with v3 for sure. Even though there are some things like exploit etc, v3 also represents the journey and the continuous strive for improvement… not to mention that rebranding, changing everything would be quite an effort and will need additional funding and can add delays in launch and everything that was spent on Flashstake brand is now useless. We always need to keep in mind that BZ doesn’t have unlimited supply of XIO and keep expenses in check.

Rebranding will just give bad optics and as the original post says, everyone will just see right through the rebrand. Also the argument about Defi Exposure that websites refused to list or acknowledge, what if they refuse to do that for the same brand also .

2 Likes

Thank you for the detailed explanation, the matter is more nuanced than I initially thought (in particular with respect to the article linked by Anthony).
My initial feeling was very strongly leaning towards rebranding, because the flashstake brand in itself would, in my opinion, not have positive connotations to people that are not already in. On the other hand, as seen on the Tg channels, some people have very strongly negative feelings towards flashstake. Therefore, my feeling is that there is nothing to gain, and much to lose, by keeping the flashstake brand. This point is countered by the article, which is interesting.
I am still convinced that rebranding is the way to go, the main reason being that Flash V3 does not have that much in common with the previous iterations. The permanent liquidity idea, and the fact that it would be a full-blown DEX, justifies a new branding that reflects that a bit more (flashswap is already taken, but something along those lines could be more meaningful).
There are other reasons, such as a desire to take some distance with V1/V2 and their charts and issues, but the main point for me is that it is a very different project, and in my opinion the name should reflect that. I enjoyed the back to the future memes, so I’ll go ahead and propose DeLoreanSwap, or PlutoniumSwap (reflecting the fuel-like nature of the new token).
Another point is that, if I understand correctly, V2 is expected to keep existing on its own. If that is the case, it would be even more important to have a clear separation so that both projects can thrive without a risk of shadowing each other.
Finally, V3 might lead new investors to fear that a V4, V5 etc… are coming, and to stay away from the project until a stable version exists. Hopefully, the launch of DeLoreanSwap will be flawless, and no investor will ever see a DeLoreanSwap-V2!

1 Like

It’s good to see the efforts council put in for the flash protocol

My vote is for the rebranding of the protocol. It helps represent the upgrades we’ll made to the protocol though it should “rebrand only”(not in a favor of scratch starting) and flash history will be there for the transparency.

Flash v3 as a complete DEX, and migration to ethereum layer two solutions strongly support the rebranding.

The proposal put forward by Zach is really promising and the council need to make sure that rebranding shouldn’t affect the timeline of the deliverables for the protocol.

1 Like

With the new website up, a video coming up on Flash and all the previous articles using Flash let’s stick with “Flashstake”. Don’t let fudders win. Let’s follow through. It’s the perfect name for what it is.

You are not your past, you are an accumulation and application of all lessons past.

1 Like

Stick with the brand.

Appreciate Anthony’s contribution and the recommendation sounds valid.

Altogether I don’t see arguments that suggest doing a re-brand. The chance of getting listed seems to be little. Or we may as well assume that V3 has similar odds of getting through.

Re-branding can be a fun thing to do. But I am positive that there will be more projects to brand in the future.

As to the pro arguments to keep the brand profile.

I find it really cool. From back to the future, to Flashtronaut, the neon colors. It’s great.

Blockzero being a lab for experiments I regard several versions and indicating the iteration as a statement that is in line with the essence of the project. And that is the core of good branding.

As to the sentiments that others have on V1 and V2, I doubt that a rebrand would be the right way to address these. A V3 will certainly communicate continuity and that itself should be a positive signal and increase confidence. Continuity and focus on priorities are things I believe and prospects alike appreciate.

Perhaps we could think instead think about KPI options that trigger a rebrand? E. G. Brand exists 3 years. 100.000 unique users, 1 million uses asf

2 Likes

I’d rather stick with the current brand.

The idea of wiping historical price action is appealing: it opens us up for new price discovery, for better or worse, and might be better for newer investors.

However, I’d rather not be in the business of rewriting history. If a project has experienced hardships and overcome them, personally I’d be more inclined to investigate further than if a project appeared squeaky clean. ETH and BTC have both experienced near protocol-ending events (more so in the case of BTC) and come out the other side, and they’re still the top 2 crypto.

Besides, how shady will it look if people become aware of the intentions behind the rebrand?

1 Like

I don’t think this is necessary.
We can clear all history we want but we can’t erase it in our memory and in the memory of everyone who have get in touch with the project.
Every we have done before, we have truly believe is was the right action to do for the project. We should assume it.

Maybe we should insist continuously, because I believe many people call for sometimes this project FlashMagic. CMC never list us on the first demand.

As you said, we are still not sure.
It is just like we want to we’re a mask before knocking their door again.

I’m in favor with this.

This is for me a new project that may not have any relation with Flash and it will demand time and new resources, and at the end not really sure to have the mass adoption.

So in conclusion, I vote yes for this option.
I think we should keep going with Flash V3. Instead of a total new rebranding, we should keep ameliorating Flash.
I think a new rebranding will give a really negative apprehension of what we really want to do.
Let’s continue with amelioration and work a lot on mass adoption.
I don’t think the dApp have a really problem now apart these high fees we always have when flashstaking. Is the same problem with many others projects.

1 Like

That’s the way to go. The brand is strong, the design looks awesome and everything is ready for liftoff. Flashstake easily reached $2+ million in volume with the old crappy V1 website&branding (because of some youtubers covering the project, God bless them), so I see no reason why the new branding won’t succeed, assuming that we will do proper paid marketing, not half-assed “organic” stuff.

Owning the past mistakes (and hopefully not repeating them ;)) is way better than swiping the past under the rug, moving to a new name and assuming that people will forget what happened.

One other thing to take into consideration is the speed and resources. Blockzero as it stands right now doesn’t have the resources for a new rebranding, and this could push the timeline back just enough for us to miss the next altseason. We already missed the first one, now we have one more chance to rebuild and take Flashstake to $100+ million marketcap before the bullmarket is over.

Well, to be honest I wouldn’t put much trust into a project with less than 10 million marketcap, no Coingecko tags, no TVL data and daily volume less than $100k, especially if the founder/s don’t have connections and strings to pull in order to get the project listed anywhere. For the industry leading DeFi websites to aknowledge you, you have to present them a strong project, marketcap-wise, volume-wise, TVL-wise, marketing-wise, etc. so until those things get fixed I wouldn’t count too much on these websites. Also maybe for some of them you have to pay a fee in order to get listed? Not sure how it works, but this can be a thing they could use in order to keep cheap shitcoins at bay. Talking to other projects CEO’s and learning how they managed to get listed everywhere could also be an option to accelerate the DeFi website listings.

Seeing that the new Flashstake V3 is different than the old one is enough to justify the airdrop and moving the protocol forward. I think it signifies that the brand is strong and keeps it keeps evolving and improving while keeping the core idea of flashstaking intact. Also having FLASH V3 traded on Uniswap V3 sounds perfect to me haha

2 Likes

Okay, I really don’t think we need a new rebrand right now, a new reset. The resources at our disposal should be used to push forward and advance what we have achieved so far. We need to improve what we have, not start from scratch every time. Flash is an excellent brand, a name that hardly finds equal in the defi world, and that is truly perfect for the type of sector and niche in which we operate. Starting from scratch would take far too long. Moving from version one to version two and then to version three, it’s progressing, it’s updates. What would we say if uniswap did a rebrand after it was updated to version 2 and then 3? Staying on the same path and moving forward in the versions gives an idea of ​​progression and seriousness. Starting from scratch every time makes old investors lose confidence while trying to find new ones. I really don’t think it’s the right way.

1 Like

Path #1 | Continue - ForTheWin

I think we should stick with current brand, it suits the protocol. Also to rebrand everything will require a lot of work which could be used elsewhere. We already got and paid for the new site and i think its a waste to rebrand it now.

To be honest i’m a bit confused, if we decide to go with rebranding, How will this even work? It was said we would be dropping V3 tokens to V2/V1 holders. So with rebranding we would be rebranding just V3 token and let V2 live on or rebrand everything? Thats why i think its best to stay on Path #1, because we would then have 2 projects with different names and basicaly almost the same functionality.

Wow, I gotta say I am surprised by the sentiment to stay with the Flash brand! I thought it would be an even argument or more on the side of a rebrand.

Taking all arguments and comments so far into consideration, the biggest strength for rebranding in my view is still that we will be able to wipe the history with the coingecko and marketcap charts. It is sad that this is such a huge factor but it is.

Newcomers will look at price history as an immediate indicator of whether a project is worth pursuing in terms of further research

Whether we like it or not, that is a reality. This strength for rebranding could be mitigated if we could refresh the history with V3 somehow through a nicely worded email/donation or something to coingecko/marketcap? I don’t know if this has been considered but it could be worthwhile.

I love Flash, the website, the app (for the most part), the branding so far was beautiful, it was just never marketed effectively.

Vote: Stay with Flash. Market effectively leading into the launch and after. Use credible YouTubers, let promoters with massive audiences explain the narrative of the project so that people get past the price history.

Cheers,

Not going to be long-winded with my response, but here’s a suggestion:

what about:

FlashYield

New name, new brand, new charts, better descriptor (you’re actually get yield upfront), but it retains some history and association with the origins of Flash. Perhaps the token could be fYIELD, as the flashable tokens in V3 will all have a little f at the front (i think)?

3 Likes

Ha.
Tough question.

I did like these two points in favor of rebranding (plus other mentioned various time)

But I think keeping the brand could be a great narrative for BZ.
All great leaders and famous entrepreneurs failed various time.
That is what made them finally succeed in the long term.
Only the one that stand up again after falling go further.
That is the true reality for blockzero.
We have a real transparency in all that is done. Strong honesty.
Instead of hiding the past we should be proud of it and create a narrative about that.

The tokens will be airdroped to all the holders.
That’s a great way to show that the team tries to improve the value added to every holders, not trying to rob them selling them new tokens.
Like Uniswap evolves with various version, so does Flash.

Let’s be proud of our youth, early mistakes, blindnesses, experimentations.
After being a child and a teen it’s time to time-travel being an adult protocol :wink:
Only those that don’t adapt die. Flash keeps adapting and will never die.

Trying to hide the project behind another name won’t work.

  • holders will know it
  • The project will be marketed as belonging to BZ, and those who already know flash probably know BZ too
  • people dig and chat, and that will be known soon

It’s better we stick to the brand.

When v3 gets launched and offers good utility, real investors won’t hesitate to dive in. It’ll sell itself for sure

I like how this was brought to the community, most of us probably wish we could have a reset button for life itself but it is never that simple.

With that said the way going forward should be to keep the flash brand, upgrade to V3 and have a face (lead) for the project just like how aqua have a lead. When I hear flash i remember the history but i cant recall anybody owning up the lead role of the project i use to think it was Zach because of his dedicated role to the development of flash, but he isnt so getting a lead should be a priority going forward. Dont give up on flash just yet let us make it number one in the time base protocol and if we could get insights from credible persons in thee space that might alleviate some persons thought on flash.

Redesign would mean like your backing down and it would be more costly too and surely take alot of time so im not in for a redesign.

Yes, but flashstake didn’t actually “fail” in its narrative or objective. The team succeeded to deliver a dapp, and to create the first ever flash stake economy system. That is a great success. Going from v2 to v3 is not because of the failed v2… That is a wrong way to see it. Going to v3 is just an upgrade, adding new features to the current flash system. It is going forward. Any successful project has had newer version (uniswap v1, 2,3…balancer v1 and then v2… Same with sushiswap.)

Well, you are actually using that positive narrative I was speaking about.

But when I read “This includes everything from clearing the price chart history, to (possibly) distancing ourselves from any previous negative narrative around the project.” I understand that for some people the project somehow failed.

If it was 100% a success the question would not be asked and the brand would be kept. There would be no value changing it.