[TEMP CHECK] Proposal to Rename GHO to USDA for Enhanced Clarity and Adoption

Governance
21

Hey everyone, thanks so much for jumping into this debate. Your insights are great, whether you like GHO or leaning toward a tweak. I’ve read through the latest takes, and I’ll try to wrap this into one response that hits the key points. Loving the mix of support and pushback.

Why a Name Change Could Be a Game-Changer

To those vibing with GHO’s current brand I totally get it. Over the recent years, Aave poured serious effort into making GHO a recognizable name, and it’s carved out a cool niche in DeFi circles. But here’s the thing: recognition among us insiders is one thing; breaking into the mainstream or real-world asset (RWA) use cases is another. Some of you nailed it: stablecoins without “USD” in their name (like DAI or Frax) have struggled to signal their peg instantly, and even DAI’s pivoting to USDS shows that. GHO’s quirky charm is awesome for DeFi natives, but for consumers, brands, or ecosystems beyond our bubble, GHO might not scream “stablecoin” loud enough. A name like avUSD, USDA, USDa, or even a suite of GHO-backed USD-named coins could flip that switch. Think instant clarity driving adoption across yield farms, RWAs, or the "big leagues” of crypto. Imagine GHO’s supply jumping from $200M to $1B in 18 months because it’s a no-brainer for new users and integrators. That’s the kind of gain I’m betting on.

Sunk Costs vs. Future Gains

I hear the concern about tossing out millions spent on branding. Nobody likes watching effort go poof. But as some of you pointed out, that’s a sunk cost. What matters now is what pushes GHO furthest, fastest. If keeping the name risks plateauing its growth (say, because it feels too niche or cryptic), we’re leaving money on the table. A rebrand isn’t about erasing GHO’s legacy. It’s about amplifying it. Picture this: USDA/avUSD inherits GHO’s DeFi cred but adds mass-market appeal, pulling in liquidity from DeFI platforms that dwarf what we’ve got now. The cost of a switch might sting, but if it doubles GHO’s TVL or market cap, isn’t that worth a look?

Numbers, Not Feelings

To the folks saying GHO’s fine as is or that adoption — not branding — is the real hurdle, I’m with you halfway. Liquidity, integrations, and efforts like Horizon are critical — no argument there. But why not stack it? A name tweak could turbocharge those efforts, not distract from them. I just don’t want us to dismiss it out of hand because “GHO is working” or “We like it.” Liking it’s not enough if there’s a bigger win waiting. So, here’s my ask: let’s not guess. Can we task a small crew / working group, whoever to crunch some numbers? Estimate rebranding costs for tech and marketing, then project gains like 50% more liquidity or 2x adoption in a year or 18 months ahead? If it’s a dud, I’ll happily let GHO keep spooking the market. If numbers show up, we’ve got a no-brainer move. What do you say to that?

Thanks again for all feedbacks — positive or not, it is all fuel. GHO’s got legs either way; I just want us to run the math and see if a new pair of shoes makes it sprint.

2 Likes
22

could you please elaborate on the feasibility of this?

23

Not supportive of name changes currently. Especially given the work that goes to growth, rebranding and remarketing. It’s something that should not be taken lightly. Currently, Aave community enjoys a uniform branding.

GHO feels unique and has a nice touch and derives from ghosts, referring to our community.

It’s a topic that can be reviewed in 2-3 years from now.

All those USDXYZs are going to be meaningless when users simply move USD from their bank accounts to onchain into Aave, it’s all going to be abstracted away on the UIs. Thats the future.

5 Likes
24

After all this feedback and community interaction, ACI has published a TEMP CHECK Snapshot under Skywards.

Vote will start tomorrow, we encourage everyone to vote and participate accordingly.

25

The GHO ticker has quite some character, and points to Aave’s stablecoin being different than all others out there.

It is possible that for some types of markets, GHO’s lack of naming correlation with USD could slow down adoption, but in my opinion (and similar to others in the thread), with growth done properly, naming is not any closer to the top of the list of aspects to optimise. Highly possible counterproductive to do so.

Appreciate the efforts of @FREDY on the proposal and pointing out all the different arguments, but personally I’m against at this stage.

26

Hello @ACI

It is strange the proposal has been bumped to a vote already, which caught me a bit off guard as author! I totally get the eagerness to settle it, but I feel like we’re still in the thick of a really good discussion here. We’ve had some awesome back-and-forth solid arguments for keeping GHO’s vibe and some compelling takes in favor of a name tweak. From what I’ve seen, a majority of individual commenters (not voting power, I know) seem to lean toward exploring a change, or at least digging deeper, which tells me there’s real curiosity here which can be reflected by broader DeFi market.

I’m not saying we should drag this out forever, but we haven’t even circled back to that idea of a group crunching some numbers and costs, potential TVL gains, adoption upside. That was picking up steam as a next step to make this a proper, data-backed call, not just a gut vote. Rushing to Snapshot now feels like we are skipping a chance to get it right, especially when big voting power might outweigh the discussion’s momentum. I’d hate to see this die early when it’s still sparking good ideas.

Could we pause the vote and let this mature a bit more? Maybe spin up that analysis crew to give us hard figures, say, rebranding costs versus a supply bump, so we’re not just guessing? I’m cool with whatever the DAO decides, but let’s make it a choice we can stand behind with eyes wide open. Fair to keep the discussion alive a little longer?

27

Regarding GHO’s Unique Charm and Uniform Branding

I get the love for GHO’s ticker. It has got that ghostly Aave flair, a nod to the community that sets it apart from the USDXYZ crowd. The work to grow it into a recognizable piece of Aave’s ecosystem isn’t lost on me either. It is a big lift to rebrand, and I’m not taking that lightly. The idea that UIs might abstract away tickers in the future as users move USD onchain is a cool vision too. But here’s my worry: waiting 2-3 years to revisit this might mean missing a massive window right now. If GHO’s quirky name slows its sprint to mainstream adoption - like for RWAs or casual DeFi users - those are years of growth we can’t claw back. Plus, rebranding later, after deeper entrenchment, could cost more (think bigger marketing budgets, more integrations to update) than biting the bullet today. Opportunity cost feels bigger than the sunk cost here.

On Adoption, Naming and Numbers

What if the ticker’s lack of USD clarity is quietly capping that push? Some folks earlier flagged how stablecoins without “USD” historically lag in traction, and even DAI’s leaning into USDS now. Naming might not be the bottleneck, but it could be a lever we’re underrating. Why not test that instead of assuming it’s counterproductive?

Back to this important point, I’d hate for us to kick this can 2-3 years down the road without peeking under the hood. Can we spin up some analysis, say, rebranding costs today versus waiting (higher $ plus lost growth), and project some gains?

Regarding the question about GHO-backed named coins

Cool it caught your eyes. GHO has already a solid base, minted on Ethereum and bridged to other chains. For better clarificaiton, when I said USD-name coins I actually meant other stablecoins. Could build a suite of coins like “EURA/avEUR” or “GBPA/avGBP” alongside USDA/avUSD, each tied to GHO but pegged to different fiat via oracles, or even a yield-bearing, all pegged to GHO’s underlying value, fully backed by the same overcollateralized system. Think of GHO as the engine: it stays as the native core.

Thanks again for keeping up this discussion.

1 Like
28

Hi @FREDY thanks for all the effort you’ve put into this. It’s really great to see your enthusiasm for this topic. From our POV, responding to your idea of a “group crunching some numbers and costs, potential TVL gains, adoption upside” - who do you think would do this and how would they be compensated?

It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of support to explore this idea right now; given your passion for the topic, if you have the ability to conduct this analysis, it would be most helpful to do so to add some depth to your arguments about why it’s better to change GHO to USDA. Funding such an initiative from the DAO without a clear plan on how to go forward and parties who would partake doesn’t seem practical at the moment, especially when the focus of a lot of service providers and contributors to Aave right now is on growing the protocol and capitalising on the market-leading position the DAO currently is in. If there was more clarity on how you’d like to go ahead from your end, then it’d be a more tangible topic for contributors to opine on, but at the moment, it just seems like a nice idea that not a lot of folks are sold on (yet).

29

Why not do this? Let’s decide to keep the GHO name and explore ideas around building on top of it.

@sid_areta Funny enough, I know a small team Aave could acqui-hire to get this job done.

30

After Snapshot monitoring, the current TEMP CHECK Snapshot recently ended, reaching both Quorum and NAY as winning option, with 652.1K votes.

Therefore, [TEMP CHECK] Proposal to Rename GHO to USDA for Enhanced Clarity and Adoption has NOT PASSED.

Closing thread.