Forget the Great Reset. Members of the industry known as “crypto” (or is it “blockchain,” “digital assets” or “distributed ledger technology?”) attending this week’s World Economic Forum under the shadow of the crisis known as “FTX” are spurring a great rebrand. In the wake of the Bahamas-based exchange’s meltdown, “crypto” and “NFTs” (non-fungible tokens) have become trigger words for skeptics who dismiss this technology as hot air with no utility – much as “blockchain” was viewed in 2018 around the initial coin offering (ICO) bubble. It’s also clear that “crypto” is now being widely associated with “have-fun-staying-poor” crypto bros and with what MIT Digital Currency Initiative Director Neha Narula calls “token casinos.” That the word now makes policymakers and executives squeamish is a barrier to progress for any crypto industry leader looking to engage with them. Hence, there was talk of a new lexicon (we’re stuck with “crypto” for now) as business leaders tried to convince policymakers attending the talkfest in Davos, Switzerland, of the need for constructive regulation or sought deals, engagement or just acceptance by leaders of mainstream companies who’d also turned out in force. Brynly Llyr, the head of blockchain and digital assets at the World Economic Forum, suggested “decentralized systems” as a phrase that’s accurately descriptive of the function this technology plays without risking a negative association with crypto culture. Others are simply resurfacing “blockchain,” hoping it will be more palatable to businesses that want to use these systems to manage enterprise needs. The industry’s language problem goes beyond the negative connotations of “crypto.” It’s also that catchall words lack precision and vital nuance. For example, there are multiple types of tokens. These include commodity tokens like ether (ETH) that power public blockchains; store-of-value assets such as bitcoin (BTC); payment tokens such as USDC; and NFTs, which are essentially markers of scarce digital objects. All are often lumped under the label “cryptocurrencies,” which fosters an association with the traditional idea of “currencies” and carries distinct legal and political connotations. This imprecision creates problems for participants in this industry when they negotiate over rules or terms of service with each other and with policymakers and non-crypto businesses. Obsessing about words in this way might seem beside-the-point when the most important thing is to come up with protections against the kind of malfeasance that led to the FTX collapse. But amid reports that compliance officers are now giving banks blanket instructions to block services to any entity that’s touched” crypto” – if taken literally, a group that includes the likes of Microsoft, Starbucks and, ironically, BNY Mellon – it’s clear that we all need to get clearer with our words. Who decides, though? This is not a central marketing department or chief brand officer that can dictate what brand labeling this industry should use. The market will decide which words to use. So, for now, we’re stuck with “crypto.” | 