[Feedback Wanted] Wrapped Bitcoin Ledger on the Internet Computer

I made a quick Twitter poll with some of the ideas discussed here, hopefully we can get some more input: https://twitter.com/lastmjs/status/1491065564826984448

5 Likes

Looks like people really like iBTC…perhaps icBTC would be even better?

6 Likes

It would be a bit short sighted to choose a name for something potentially game changing for Bitcoin and tying it to the IC.

Your audience does not represent the broader crypto market (which largely believes the Internet Computer/IC is a rug pull, do a poll or ask any large crypto fund this and you will quickly find the answer as we have), and definitely does not represent the broader macro markets (which don’t care/know about blockchain protocols, but want a easy to understand story that relates to them).

We can tap into bigger pools of liquidity if we go with eBTC, just my 2c.

5 Likes

icBTC all the way!

I really think the name must contain BTC, and it must be swapped at a 1-to-1 ratio otherwise things will just become confusing.

Also, BTC is just the first of many coins for which this same process will happen and we should follow a single pattern for each of them.

I think icBTC, icETH, etc works well.

10 Likes

icBTC is my thinking as well.

icBTC has the benefit of

  • not using the word wrapped,
  • not using a word so close in everyday meaning to “wrapped” that it can be interpreted as disingenuous word play,
  • potentially brings attention to the IC through its name in cases where the IC would otherwise not be mentioned,
  • short and convenient.
6 Likes

WarpedBTC instead of WrappedBTC just like a warp drive distorts the shape of the space-time continuum to fly faster than light :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’m not a fan of iBTC.

CoinMarketCap will display the ticker in all uppercase, which means it will appear as IBTC. Could be confused for the letter l (yes, lowercase) or the number 1.

icBTC isn’t good either IMO. That’s too long. Also, I feel like we shouldn’t reference the Internet Computer in the name at all. Its reputation isn’t the best right now, and it may cause others to accuse ICBTC as being “centralized”.

Names with non-standard unicode characters like ∞BTC won’t work, because most people can’t type them.

eBTC sounds cool, but I don’t know if I really understand the “e for Earth” part. Also, it may be confused for Ethereum.

A bunch of objections from me but no suggestions. :man_facepalming:

8 Likes

Team iBTC here, sounds cool and like it’s bringing BTC to the future. Also for warped BTC over wrapped BTC.

Still trying to sell the hyperloop idea, what about called BTC-pods ETH-pods? Since vehicles in hyperloops transportation are called pods. Hyperloop tech may represent the analogy of what the ‘wrapped’ tech IC want to proposed. It’s green tech, lightning fast transportation, and the pods is like encapsulated / wrapped asset.

Personally, BTC-pod sounds a little weird to me, and I’m not sure how you’d abbreviate it.


How about something simple and easily readable like XBTC? X for cross-chain. (You don’t even need to explain the abbreviation, can just say it aloud as “XBTC” or “X Bitcoin”.

4 Likes

BTC-pod is just the naming (how we call the BTC-IC wrapped asset), for symbol we can use (BTC), or {BTC}, or (any ideas?). The symbol may not follow conventional naming as XBTC, but IC is proposing unconventional wrapped asset too right?

If it turns out that hyperloop tech doesn’t actually work (as the past decade has shown) then it may be a bad idea to align the future of the IC with it. This guy goes into alot of detail in several videos about why if you are interested in learning more.

What about BTX for cross-chain? Super short and recognizable.
Emphasis on cross-chain can imply “true” cross-chain without bridges etc.

Same could be used for ETH, i.e ETX.

I’ve created another poll with some runners up that weren’t included in the first poll. iBTC and icBTC were the clear favorites from the first poll and comments: https://twitter.com/lastmjs/status/1491423533419089921

Okay, I think I have hit upon a good one. How about chained Bitcoin cBTC? ‘Chained’ sounds stronger and more secure than ‘wrapped’ and indicates the asset has been initially transferred on-chain rather through a bridge.

3 Likes

CBTC doesn’t sound bad at all. The word “chained” doesn’t really have a positive connotation though. At least “wrapped” is more neutral sounding.

1 Like

I don’t like it because BTC is on chain already

1 Like

We’ve got a lot of good initial feedback from the discussions here, on Twitter, and on Distrikt. Not sure how to proceed, I do think the name is pretty important.

Perhaps we should lay out some governance proposals more clearly explaining the trade-offs with each name? For example, icBTC is long but the prefix is wide open and will work for nearly every asset we’ll want to bring to the IC. iBTC is short but many people have brought up that it sounds like an Apple product. cBTC is short and has some nice possible meanings like “canister” or “chained” but is pretty generic, so perhaps other assets won’t be able to apply the name.

1 Like

I agree there needs to be more discussion.

When would “Canister” not apply to an asset in the IC? Seems like something that could apply to any “wrapped” asset with a ledger stored in a canister.

I meant the names will have already been taken, the actual tickers. We need to make sure our names are open and can be listed without conflicts on exchanges. The prefix “c” I’m sure is used quite often already (Compound, Avalanche maybe, etc).

We have to optimize between a lot of variables to get the name right: availability of the name, trademark, readability, pronunciation, meaning, etc

2 Likes