Again commenting on my behalf and not representing anyone specifically.
I think there is a “slight” misunderstanding on what this proposal aims to achieve. In no way shape or form it’s mentioned that the proposal aims at replacing service providers identities. I wont even comment on the alleged “brand colonialism”, i dont even know what that means, must be a french thing to always turn discussions over to colonialism or dominance. Service providers are independent entities contributing on a variety of different tasks and they should of course have their own brand and identification, and rightfully so - they are factually consultants to a customer (the DAO) and consultants are not the customer. At the same time, consultants in the real world would never force their own style and identity on the customer, or the customer would immediately fire them (and rightfully so).
The proposal only aims at introducing assets for the DAO with the goal of uniforming the style of the DAO owned, user facing tools developed by the service providers so that users dont feel confused or lost. Here ACI offers the perfect example of what i mean:
This screenshot is taken from the main merit claim page. Personal, subjective opinions follow:
-
I dont see anywhere a mention of Aave. Not even talking about the logo or the ghost, i literally cant see the word Aave anywhere.
-
Doesnt look even remotely close to any of the tools built around Aave
-
It is, quite frankly, mediocre looking to say the least.
Tools like this, which are crucial (as the DAO is spending a lot of money to fund merit) in my opinion cannot and should never be built this way. If this was built for another defi project, i would literally never even connect my wallet to it. I have personally seen many tweets of users signaling of being scared to interact with this page.
Here is an example of, again in my opinion, a much better job:
This is the main GSM frontend built by TokenLogic. There is the Aave Logo, there is the Tokenlogic logo, which of course maintains its own identity, and the style is much more familiar to a user accustomed to the Aave frontend or for example the bgd governance page. This is what i personally imagine the path to use the new identity should be; Common, Aave recalling visuals and components, with touch of customizations to give each service provider the ability to give their own spin.
I think it’s great that the proposal does not define rules on how to use the identity. In my opinion should not be one service provider deciding how to define the usage of an identity but all the DAO participants. Again, the proposal only defines the assets and the modular design architecture.
I really hope this clarifies what the goal of this proposal is. I would be quite surprised if anyone who is serious about reaffirming Aave as the leader in the defi space think that having subpar visual quality, inconsistent looking tools is the best way to success.
Again, I wont comment on the opinions regarding the identity itself.
Just find curious the
It’s not DeFi.
I am not even sure what this means. Here’s a collection of logos from various defi and blockchain related projects and protocols, i challenge anyone to perform the same test, walk through a mall stopping random people and ask if they recognize any of these as “defi” or blockchain related
