Phonon Naming & Nomenclature

There has been several conversations in many places regarding the naming and nomenclature of what we are dealing with here. In an attempt to formalize a discussion on this in one place and potentially come to a conclusion on what we will be choosing for names, we can utilize this forum thread to hopefully come to consensus on this.

As it stands now we have the following:

1) Phonon - The protocol name.

No change/discussion needed.

2) PHONON - The ERC20 governance token name.

The only other distinction I’ve seen people use is $PHONON when referring to the governance token. Would these be considered interchangeable? I do not see very much heartburn with either and when spelled in all caps would be a clear distinction of what the writer is referencing, which is the governance token.

3) Native Phonon - The mined/minted/struck/created token.

Options that have been floating around for the name of what was originally introduced as ‘Native Phonon’ have been:
-Phits (Technically correct as it is a Phonon bit)
-Phlux (’…a remotely correct term. It defines the rate per unit time of particles moving through an area (flux).’
-Phux (Phonon Bucks)

4) Backed/Asset Phonon - The ‘container’ that holds on-chain asset value

Options that have been floated have been:
-ETHp, BTCp, etc.

The above lists/info is far from comprehensive of what all of the suggestions have been. Feel free to add to this and we can take it from here.


@hunt_ak #1 has always baffled me, IDK, maybe it’s just me.
Here’s my attempt in further breaking it down:

Phonon Protocol - the (technical?) structure of the Phonon Network. What the network is built on.
Phonon Network - this is the elusive one…The off-chain ability to transact digital assets via aPHON containers.
Phonon - the shorthand version of everything/anything Phonon.

#2. I vote they’re interchangeable. It’s PHONON with or without the $; I’d say that $Phonon would be acceptable but not ideal.

1 Like