Executed

#492 [Wish For Change] Kusama brand evolution inc clarifying licensing / trademarks.

Proposer:

Fvrb...FVGn

in Democracy

6th Feb '25

Description

AI Summary

Votes Bubble

Timeline

Evaluation

On Chain Info

Stats

create chaOS.png

https://hackmd.io/@DecentPartners/chaOS

An example of what brand evolution can look like to help people understand that this can be more than just tweaking a logo, but rather repositioning the project as part of broader ongoing work...

WFC summary

This Wish For Change (WFC) is aimed at obtaining a signal from holders (inc W3F as holders of Kusama trademark) as to the viability of ~~reworking~~ evolving Kusama's brand (not killing the canary).

Web3 Foundation hold Kusama (and Polkadot trademarks). See here.

So this WFC could in effect be W3F agreeing to license the kusama (whatever is in the brand trademark/IP) to relevant counter-parties to this WFC (for example Decent Partners)

It should be seen as the first in an evolving series that seeks to iterate towards creative control and strategic direction of the network moving under the oversight of OpenGov.

If the WFC passes an 'official' RFP can follow.

The period of the WFC can be used to iterate on the basic RFP and clarify questions around the brand.

The RFP outline is currently v 0.1. All changes to the RFP during the WFC period can be tracked on the main post.

It is a work in progress - the contents, structure and process are subject to discussion including costs.

All ideas and improvements encouraged.

RFP summary

Kusama invites a global network of designers, brand strategists and creative talent to submit proposals for the design evolution of Kusama.

Users are saying...

Based on all comments and replies

Overall 50 % of users are feeling neutral. The Kusama brand will not be changed as Kus DAO voted against it in the first voting. There is a proposal to refresh the brand while maintaining its essence. Concerns have been raised regarding licensing and trademarks for OpenGov use and some oppose changing the existing identity, seeing it as unnecessary. Those interested can join the discussion on Discord or Telegram.

Overall 50 % of users are feeling against it. The Hungarian Polkadot DAO voted against the high-priced rebrand proposal for Kusama, believing that the platform's value lies in experimentation, not just branding. They find Kusama's current branding cool and see no need for change. Licensing the brand through OpenGov could lead to issues with control and clarity, suggesting a direct funding approach for marketing efforts instead.

AI-generated from comments

JKbJ...9r6D

7th Feb '25

Voted Nay

Love the idea, but price is too high for a rebrand.

GqPD...ikoV

7th Feb '25

I like the idea to refresh Kusama branding, but to spend significant amount for redisign at KSM lows its pretty not smart, lets wait for better times and use the current branding.

Hide replies

Fvrb...FVGn

7th Feb '25

@AlexPromoTeam see comment above. funding is tbc. this is to get signal on a general direction and refine the RFP.

GqPD...ikoV

7th Feb '25

@Decent Partners I think there can be talent that can do it for less than 45K without sacrificing quality.

Fvrb...FVGn

7th Feb '25

@Good Karma price is subject to discussion / debate. the WFC is generally to get signal as to the community interest in pursuing an intial rebrand before other stuff.

we can iterate the RFP into a final structure during this 2 week WFC period.

HcEb...jJ5F

10th Feb '25

In this case, we think that this WFC seems redundant or unnecessary. Kusama OpenGov shouldn't be in charge of the evolution of the Kusama brand. We rather think that a better approach is simply to create a bounty that has funds for further development of the brand assets as well as graphics design of the Kusama brand and its consequent evolution/deconstruction/remodeling/use-in-general. It's a direct use of funds and more concise oversight. In any case we will vote AYE on this WFC but we recommend going for the bounty route which doesn't really need this WFC to start working with graphics designers to increase the number of brands assets or even concrete projects that will make use of the Kusama brand out there.

Hide replies

Fvrb...FVGn

11th Feb '25

@SAXEMBERG/Governance

Thanks for the comment and rationale.

One of the major reasons for pushing the WFC was because the largest holders are W3F/Parity... W3F hold the Kusama (and Polkadot) trademarks and so for certain things we need them on-side, or it gets messy.

So yes we could do some permissionless development of the brand - but we do need to know what the parameters of that brand are and the permissions (license) we need.

Not sure right now for example if the canary icon/mark is trademarked. If not, then we can basically do things in a more permissionless way...

I mention his here and see Raul here.

On the bounty point agree completely - aim would be to use the new OpenGov burn parameters in 1.4.0 upgrade to seed this 'R&D' direction/initiative and manage the org on krievo w/ dUSD payments.

The_Kus_DAO

11th Feb '25

Kus DAO have voted NAY (first voting).

✅ Exploring a Kusama brand refresh while keeping the canary alive. Seeks W3F clarity on licensing & trademarks for OpenGov use.

❌ Strong opposition to changing the existing Kusama identity. Some see it as unnecessary & already “perfect.”

💪 Get involved: 🔗 Discord Invite or Telegram Invite

💬 Join the discussion: 🔗 Discussion Thread

~@_Pieky_

GLbY...j79Z

12th Feb '25

On behalf of the Hungarian Polkadot DAO:

We have voted Nay on this WFC as we believe Kusama’s brand evolution should not be managed through OpenGov. The value of Kusama comes from projects using it as a testing ground for trying cyberpunk ideas, not from branding efforts alone. If projects don’t see Kusama as a valuable platform for experimentation, branding efforts alone will not change that. We also think the branding of Kusama is super cool and don't see the need for change at this point.

Additionally, the idea of licensing the Kusama brand through OpenGov raises concerns about clarity and long-term control. A more effective approach would be for Kusama to set up its own marketing bounty, ensuring direct funding and clearer oversight for brand development, asset creation, and promotion.

You can view how the Hungarian Polkadot DAO evaluated this proposal on our public page [here].

Fvrb...FVGn

12th Feb '25

Thanks @vonyi / Hungarian DAO.

The value of Kusama comes from projects using it as a testing ground for trying cyberpunk ideas, not from branding efforts alone.

This WFC does not sit in isolation but is one part of broader ongoing work. To be clear, there will be a brand evolution whether this proposal passes or fails - the key is to understand:

how that evolution happens
who is involved
what the process is
clarification of what is contained in Kusama's IP.
whether it requires W3F to approve licensing of terms/marks
how it is funded.

If projects don’t see Kusama as a valuable platform for experimentation, branding efforts alone will not change that.

This is not an external marketing initiative, it is closer to an internal comms one. We have plenty of talent / projects coming in, and that is based on trust built over long term relationships, not reliant on a website.

We also think the branding of Kusama is super cool and don't see the need for change at this point.

To reiterate Kusama branding is right now a font and a bird. The 'brand story' is is more than that...

EPrE...WpL2

16th Feb '25

Voted Abstain

Lucky Friday have voted NAY. Please consider this a temporary notification after our vote has gone on chain. If you would like additional feedback on our rationale for this vote, please join our OpenGov Public Forum on Telegram here: https://t.me/+559tyPSfmGg0NzUx

Lucky Friday provides feedback once per week (Fridays) if specifically requested in our OpenGov Public Forum, and we respectfully ask that all proponents of referenda interact with us here for the sake of transparency. Please tag our Head of Protocol Partnerships “Phunky” with your referendum number so that he can gather the relevant commentary from our internal deliberations.