Are we sure we want to keep Radix in our names ? I mean, while a fork or rebranding is on the menu, we cannot deny we have a very bad legacy to carry unfortunately. So, we may need a name a bit more agnostic than RadixDLT DAO
I rather we don’t use Radix at all in the DUNA’s naming, so we can be completely off any potential harassment/abuse and/or claims for RDWH, FND or any rightful owner of any IP.
Also, Hyperscale feels more close to our future than the legacy Radix. but to also avoid any conflicts, i would rather us using a new name.
TrueScale DAO LLC
TSD - TrueScale DAO ( The TSD was created)
TSADM - TrueScale DAO Administrator (Bob is a TSADM. There are 30 TSADMs)
TSDIP - TreuScale DAO Improvement Proposal (Carl submitted a TSDIP)
RFC - Request for comments (Tim submitted his RFC on radixtalk)
TC - Temperature check (The TC of Frank’s RFC passed)
I’m not saying “don’t use Radix” … I’m arguing it’s best that it’s not in the naming.
Radix can be a Brand Name, doesn’t have to be the actual entity’s name.
Are we going to receive the Radix logo and other brand/IP assets form FND?
We might end up in a place where we can’t use RadixDLT as a name at all
And then we are forced to change anyway
When Radix incorporated stuff, nothing was called Radix - RDX Works, Instaxxxxx, etc.
Only the Foundation used Radix
TrueScale here is more a provocation than an actual suggestion, btw.
I def like Hyperscale better, for example, and is probably a better fit … and it’s not trademarkable anymore, given all the uses it has had in IT, computing and engineering.
I’m also in favor of having something different than Radix for the org/entity.
This is because we don’t know how we go further and better have something neutral, maybe connected to the idea of linear scaling, since this is what we are pursuing.
I like also Hyperscale if we can use it. Otherwise something like Linear, etc.
Changing the name on the DUNA paperwork (if we go that way) is simple and just leg work. I believe there will be a pivotal moment in this journey where we are ready to push X’ian to production / mainnet and we ask ourselves if we want to hold off and pivot to a whole new chain.
Do all the snapshot stuff and start up a new network with the new X’ian code and effectively start over. New chart, new name, new ticket and all that.
Having “Radix” in our DAO’s name seems essential to me tbh. Adds legitimacy to our DAO, and if I were an entity interested in building on Radix, that would seem by far the most intuitive to me.
Not to add that we will probably never agree on any other name ;). I guess we can do a vote, but sometimes a name everyone is relatively happy with (Radix), is better than a name 20% of our members thinks is perfect, and the others dislike.
I’m not sure we’ll be entitled to use RadixDLT that easy … it’s part of the FND’s name and other companies related to … and they only cease to exist afterwards.
Maybe we’ll need a specific grant to use it and all, maybe there’s even some IP/Trademark involved, unclear to me.
Merits clarification before committing to it, at least.
I’m also in favor of keeping Radix. Rebranding requires significant effort and tends to be quite messy. It rarely delivers the “fresh start” effect people hope for.
More importantly, Radix and XRD terminology are deeply embedded throughout our ecosystem—documentation, codebase, integrations, and community resources. The technical debt from a rebrand would be substantial.
I’d suggest either “Radix DAO” or simply keeping “Radix” for clarity and continuity.
I personally would recommend retaining the original Radix name and adding DAO for the entity.
While Radix has a complex history, attempting to erase it through a rebrand would likely raise more questions than it answers. A name change would not remove the past, it would only change the packaging.
By contrast, positioning this phase as a Radix Revival would allow us to acknowledge that the previous structure failed, while making it clear that the technology and Dan’s vision did not. Everybody loves a Rocky-style comeback story especially when the comeback would be driven by real structural change, not just a new label.
IMHO this approach would signal accountability, governance maturity, and renewed alignment with decentralization, without pretending the past never happened.
especially when the comeback would be driven by real structural change, not just a new label.