The Council of EGLD: Forging the Fellowship

Disclaimer: Please excuse if this is not the most appropriate forum for this proposal. However, given the tremendous community response on X and the level of support, I believe this idea is worthy of consideration. This humble proposal is intended with full respect for the immense efforts made by all members of the core team, devs, and community over 5+ years in forging this strong network.

Strangers from distant lands, friends of old, you’ve been summoned here to answer the threat of Mordor. Ethereum stands upon the brink of destruction - none can escape it. We will unite or we will fall. Each ecosystem is bound to this fate, this one doom. Bring forth the Ring!

  1. Formation of the eGold Network

The MultiversX blockchain becomes the eGold Network. Matching our ticker with the blockchain/network name simplifies communication, solidifies our core identity, and aligns us with industry norms. This simplifies branding, nomenclature and discoverability. It also elegantly, instantly, and unmistakably connotes our primary utility as a digital store of value.


  • BTC → the Bitcoin network
  • ETH → the Ethereum network
  • SOL → the Solana network
  • EGLD → the ___________

The MultiversX L1 blockchain nomenclature is unconventional in a way that is unnecessarily confusing for most people, including crypto natives and influencers. It may seem trivial for us Elrond/EGLD/MultiversX maxis to commit these nuances to memory and trace the evolution of our ancestry, but there are others who simply do not associate EGLD to MultiversX - even despite repeated conversations. Perhaps others can attest to this within their social circles as well. Furthermore, there is a significant percentage of people who are not merely ambivalent, but rather put off by the name. Personally, I think it is kind of cool, and visually aesthetic, although phonetically less appealing…

But, explaining the ‘what is’ of MultiversX, and connecting EGLD to this futuristic entity juxtaposed at the intersection of art, culture, finance, governance, metaverse, etc. is far too complex for initiation. I believe the entire ecosystem would be better served by MultiversX Labs differentiating itself as a corporate entity with a suite of metaverse and Defi associated protocols and products on the Dapp layer of the eGold Network.

We have a strong, tech-focused community that is largely ideologically aligned. But our lack of a clear and consistent identity has exposed a vulnerability in the social layer. Our lack of coherent branding has rendered us vulnerable to superficial criticisms. Humans will continue to human, in the real world, and especially on the internet. The mockery is cheap but has been effective in dominating the narrative surrounding our blockchain, impacting community morale and ultimately, our public reputation. We are viewed as a technologically advanced blockchain with “multiple rebrands” and a name that is paradoxically quirky yet simultaneously nondescript. As on the schoolyard playground, you can only deflect criticism and bullying for so long before you have to self-reflect and adapt to the reality of the environment.

We deserve a strong and neutral name that reflects the integrity of our sophisticated architecture, sound ethics, and mission to protect freedom. We can appreciate the avant-garde, without forcing everyone into a cyberpunk fantasy as the entry point to our ecosystem. Capturing the imagination is important, but most people will only feel free to play once their basic need for emotional safety has been met - and eGold can provide this sense of security.

As we have grown into a multi-billion dollar network, and aim to be the foundational trust layer for many billions more - I believe we should lead with maturity, seriousness, and respect for the risk that people take when they choose to store the abstracted summation of their economic value, time and energy in our network. We should treat our name, brand, and social layer with the same care and attention that we have put into native assets, our UI/UX, guardians, and other key technical decisions.

It would be easy to dismiss people who do not recognize the MultiversX - EGLD association as ‘uninterested’ or ‘lazy’ - but the nature of this competitive landscape requires that we maximize every opportunity to reach those critical tipping points of adoption. In the age of exponential numbers, a 1% difference can matter far more than one would imagine and we have to meet people where they are at now.

Cryptocurrency remains an industry plagued by its association with scams and gambling. First impressions matter. Most people form a first impression within 7 seconds and some research suggests that people can make accurate judgments within 1/10 of a second. When you factor in that many have already lost some money in crypto or feel jaded by crypto evangelizers, the time you have to provide a coherent narrative and garner trust is vanishingly short.

The eGold network best represents the essence of our community, and our technology. As stakeholders of a multi-billion dollar network, and the true embodiment of Satoshi’s vision - we should ground our brand first and foremost in EGLD - the next evolution of programmable, scarce internet money.

  1. Formation of the eGold Fellowship

More than an homage - as we mature into a fully decentralized network - the eGold Fellowship is established as non-profit organization that functions as a community of teams who collaborate to support the evolution of the core protocol and steward over the growth of the eGold network. The Company of the EGLD shall be Nine; and the Nine Walkers shall be set against the Nine Blockchains that are evil… just kidding. :man_mage: :man_elf: :man_beard:

MultiversX Labs remains a critical faction within the Fellowship; however, there are clear boundaries between MultiversX - the corporate entity representing one group of builders among many, with its own suite of products on the eGold network - and the eGold Fellowship itself. The eGold Fellowship assumes responsibility for coordinating efforts among the various stakeholders of the network, overseeing protocol developments and representing eGold publicly as an open and decentralized network.

MultiversX continues to innovate and thrive, focusing on profitability and responsible only for marketing their specific products on the eGold network (or any other networks they choose to build upon). xExchange, xPortal, xMoney, and any future xProducts remain key lego blocks that attract users to the eGold ecosystem, but no longer is the MultiversX brand synonymous with the entire network itself or expected to be seen as the ‘kingmaker’ responsible for marketing all projects within the ecosystem.

In Conclusion
The eGold network and the eGold Fellowship are forged with a simplified, crystal clear identity and mandate to fulfill Satoshi’s vision. I think this is a story worth telling.

P.S. Regardless of the outcome, thank you all for giving this idea your attention and consideration. I will address the other suggestions in another thread. Long live MultiversX. Long live EGLD.


I agree that eGold Network makes more sense, it’s easier to remember and easier to pronounce than MultiversX (although I get the idea behind MvX).
At the same time I think it’s way too early for another rebranding… it will probably create even more confusion and it will probably be laughable from outside (“those egld guys change their name every 2 years, they don’t even know who they are anymore”)

Regarding the eGold Fellowship I have no strong opinion.
I think we’re not ready yet as a community to assume such responsibilities in a coherent way, but a community organization with these long term goals might be a starting process of getting ready.


This is a worthwhile subject but I’m not sure I agree with the parroted messages that MultiversX is confusing. Its really not. I believe the opposite is true in that the rebrand from Elrond to MultiversX brought an ecosystem neatly under one banner (xPortal, xExchange, xMoney etc). I also think the frustration is born from price performance more than anything else. The only truly valid point I agree with, which has been pointed out already by Serenation I think, is the lack of connection between MultiversX and the EGLD coin. The message from now on must always strongly be ‘MultiversX powered by eGold’

Also what you are proposing seems even more confusing having more names to think about. People will ask “what is the difference between egold network, egold fellowship, MultiversX Labs” It splits things even more and as others have already said, yet another name change is the last thing people want and would probably be damaging. If anything any change to easily link the network name with the coin should have been done before. So either eGold Network + EGLD coin or MultiversX and MVX coin and leave it at that but its too late now. We need to look forward.

Whether people like or dislike the name is another thing altogether and MultiversX is only just being pushed out there hard on multiple fronts. There is no way big influencers or crypto savvy natives have not heard of us by now. Of course you will always get comments on twitter from other chain communities trying to fud or be funny by asking what MultiversX is or they have never heard of it. Its just part of the silly games. The big influencers wont talk about it because they have a narrative to stay in their circle of choice and investments. Nothing can be done about that part and so the way forward is to continue pushing on all other fronts. One day there will be new influencers with the 1 million plus audiences who will talk about MultiversX.

1 Like

Fully agree with the other commentors so far.

It’s way too early for another rebrand (if it’s a good idea to rebrand again is yet another discussion - my opinion is: no more rebrands!).

And your proposal aims to make things more unified, but in reality it splits everything up even more and makes it even more confusing.

So hard no from me.

In my experience, this is not simply a narrative that is being ‘parroted’ by people seeking to do harm or merely emerging as a result of frustration about price. This is a sensible and inevitable discussion about the identity, branding, social reach, and evolution of our network as it becomes more decentralized.

We are not following the norms of the nomenclature in the industry for our L1, and we are compared against the simplicity and coherence of those who do follow those norms. In all other aspects of our network, we strive to cater to the simplest user experience and highest performance - but in our branding and social layer, we have introduced unnecessary complexity. It is unique, but seen as “bandwagon” and cringe by some. Some think it is cool, others not, but the serious matter of protecting one’s wealth should not hinge on whether you have a penchant for intergalactic imagery.

Many in my social circle simply lose interest before they can become interested because it is more unserious and confusing than what they are comparing us to. The fact that you have to explain “MultiversX powered by eGold” already demonstrates the extra layer of friction. MultiversX does represent a cyberpunk fantasy. We can invite people to explore the MultiversX products some day after we have first convinced them to protect their wealth by holding EGLD. It is difficult to even get people to download “xPortal” because it sounds sketchy and no one wants to portal their money to another dimension to explore a blockchain. They want something more like the ‘eVault - Fort Knox in your pocket.’

MultiversX can maintain it’s hyper-futuristic branding and prominent role as the historical founders of Elrond, while also allowing the eGold network to mature for a broader audience. A decentralized network, by definition, should not fit neatly under one banner when it comes to the products built on top of it. (Of course there are efficiencies and advantages to vertical integration and centralization but that is not why we are here.) In most cases, however, there should be internal consistency between the name of the network and the primary investment vehicle.

We spend far too much time explaining about MultiversX, and diverting attention that should be fully directed towards advocating for EGLD. EGLD is what will protect you from inflation. EGLD is what will preserve your access to capital when you have an unfashionable political opinion. EGLD is what allows you to send money from Korea to the United States in an instant for a fraction of a cent. EGLD is the revolutionary technology. EGLD should be at the forefront of our branding and public communication. And this is why EGLD needs a distinct collective to advocate for itself so that there is no conflict of perception or mission.

MultiversX should be free to take risks and succeed/fail as a company and with its products without being the fulcrum of the network itself. I believe that MultiversX would benefit from this as well and the company would be able to better focus their energy on their products without the perception that they have been gatekeeping the network or failing to take on responsibilities that should not be associated with them, as has been the case thus far. But when your company shares the name of the network, there will be some valid criticisms and expectations there. We need a separate entity that tends to the growth of eGold alone, its recognizability, and its mission of decentralization.

How many streams and spaces have we seen where a community member asks, “What do you think about MultiversX?” Similar to Charles Hoskinson’s response, most will say “I have not heard of MultiversX.” You do not have time when engaging with these audiences frequently to clarify or ask a second question. Instead of an opportunity to raise awareness and have an interesting discussion about EGLD with someone who has a large audience, we miss the opportunity to create a memorable first point of awareness for EGLD - the conversation never launches and the moment quietly passes. This will change over time, but it is also important to respect the present.

Take a moment to reflect about those who will miss the opportunity to improve their lives because they are genuinely intimidated by the perception of investing/risking their money into a company associated with a futuristic fantasy adventure. Then you have to explain that you aren’t investing in the company per se, it’s a network, and they don’t actually control it… [redacted to avoid off-topic misrepresentations]

Algorithms that track things such as Bitcoin and #BTC references do not properly account for the fact that we have such disparate ways of referring to our network. We still see Elrond, MvX, MultiversX, EGLD - it is not about whether people “should” be able to differentiate and learn these terms and what they represent. Quite simply, people should not have to learn them. And for the most part, people have a lot of trepidation and inertia already when they engage with crypto, and we are not projecting an intrinsically inviting and coherent message. Meme season has demonstrated how important the social element of crypto is in onboarding users. The fragmentation of our social metrics, branding, broader social layer, and elements of cringe are easily resolved.

I think it is fair to say that as we mature as a network, MultiversX should not subsume the identity of the entire network. There is no conflict in MultiversX continuing to exist as a company and to market itself and it’s products and protocols on the eGold Network alongside Hatom, Ash, and all of the other builders.

I don’t think we have to choose. We just need to balance our approach and forge a path for normies that is more simple and mature.

So the norm is to have a Polygon Foundation and MATIC-Network and MATIC-Fellowship? That would be new to me.

What is complex about having “MultiversX network” and eGLD as the token?
Cardano network - ADA
Polygon Network - MATIC

The other day, someone from Loopring Foundation announced they would rebrand their mobile wallet to xPortal. Obviously they cannot do that because xPortal is a brand and trademark protected and they later deleted the tweets - but the thing is, the communities reaction was extremely positive and they loved the name. So how can you seriously say that xPortal is a bad name? Even in the MultiversX community I know only 1 person that doesn’t like xPortal name, and obviously this is you.

The current/previous name of Loopring wallet is “Vault”. lol. And the community was very happy when they announced the xPortal rebrand.

Okay now it’s obvious to me this is purely about price.
EGLD is not the technology, EGLD is merely the coin of the network. EGLD doesnt allow you to send money from US to korea in a second. The MultiversX network allows you to do that.

Who thinks this? Nobody. Not even those who say “never heard of MultiversX” think this.
And what do you mean “they […] kind of control it”?
MultiversX Foundation builds their products on top of it but the network itself is not controlled by them.

So you expect them to… just know MultiversX? I dont understand. People also have to learn about companies and their respective (different named!) stock tickers if they want to invest into them, and any subcompanies or whatnot

Because the network name and coin ticker are different?
Like is the case with a dozen other network?

My points stand alone and should be viewed independent of any concerns about price or comparison to other networks except insofar as we can learn from the success of others in a positive way. Again, it is not about whether MultiversX is a good name or a bad name, or how many rebrands are too many, or casting any blame or judgment… Of course any name can succeed in theory. Any brand is ‘what you make it.’ But it is a matter of optimization in a competitive field where the reality is that we do have less funding, and less awareness.

This is not even about what I personally think. What do other people think? What does our community think? Is the market not voting with their words, actions, and dollars also?

The point is to have a discussion. Are we going in the right direction? 28,000 viewed the X thread for a reason, and some do agree that an alignment of name, brand, and ticker would be beneficial. Others disagree.

The question is simply, are we communicating in the most straightforward manner? Is our message landing? Is there alignment between how we are known and how we represent ourselves? Is our current identity playing well in the social sphere? Are we pushing some people away? How can we invite more to the table?

It is completely fair to ask, how can we optimize our marketability? This has been the core critique of our community for multiple years. One simple solution (not the only solution perhaps) might be to create more alignment between our network name and how we are recognized and discovered by others. There is no doubt that our brand is confusing to many people and I believe this is why many resonated with the initial thread. Even Bitcoin, simple as it is, is confusing to many people. To deny that crypto is intimidating to people is to have never attempted to onboard anyone to the network. How can we reduce this friction?

xPortal, amazing as it is, was promised to be the vector that would create a path for rapid, viral adoption. This has not been the case. You can lead the horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Why aren’t the horses drinking? Are we even doing our job and leading the horses to water?

The L1 in the top 10 crypto rankings for the most part follow the norm I described: Bitcoin - BTC; Ethereum - ETH; Binance - BNB; XRP - XRP; Dogecoin - DOGE… TON, AVAX… Of course there are exceptions. There will always be exceptions.

Can you please show me this promise where it was written/promised?

And you should really get to the point. Your entire text is a philosophical masterpiece with zero content. Furthermore you answered practically zero of of my questions and countered none of my arguments.

You make your text look good by using this writing style without actually conveying any message and any content. Your entire message could have been compacted to “It’s worth having a discussion over it. Obviously some people don’t like the branding or ticker difference.” The rest of your text was just weird comparisons and lyrical texts and phrases to enhance the perceived sophistication of your comment.

You say you want to have a discussion but at the same time fail to answer my questions or arguments. Not only mine, but those of other commenters as well. This is not a discussion; this is a self advertisement

The Loopring situation is a funny coincidence. I am glad you brought it up. I thought most of your arguments were true but also misrepresented the broader point I was making to a degree. Either way, I am glad you think that I write well and took the time to read and respond.

I think it is okay to acknowledge that many people struggle to recognize, connect with, intuit, and communicate about our general brand, mission, and identity right now. We can acknowledge this and still argue that another rebrand at this moment may not be the best idea or even feasible, especially with our World Tour approaching. We can see how things are received and try to address these issues in other ways perhaps.

It is getting harder to stand out these days and crypto is as much a social and political game as it is about technology and finance. So the sooner we find out what our core message is, and how to articulate it in a simple way that people understand in 3 seconds - the better.

The best explanation of MultiversX that I have seen, of course, comes from Robert:

MultiversX for the blockchain makes tons of sense, it is a base layer in which everything can be built. It scales continuously, it is safe, it is ever expanding. It is a general purpose blockchain where everyone can strive and move around.

Thus you can have multiple worlds and by the power of Web3 move around as you wish. A world can be a SocialFi, DEXs, NFT world, games, and more.

I think it is a well explained, logical description - but it has little emotional impact. It’s long to define, nebulous, & not particularly compelling or motivating. The metaverse is passé. Moving between worlds while you sit in your underwear switching tabs wearing a dork helmet.

Compare this to our mainnet launch message: eGLD - “The most scarce, useful, valuable, and desirable currency”

Number go up technology that you can actually use. That’s beautiful. And we could pivot back to this message at any time. A scalable currency primed for global adoption. Bitcoin is huge now, so I don’t know if we will make it look like a toy, but we can definitely reach a tipping point in adoption by focusing on the store of value narrative.

So far, from the audience of hardcore MvX supporters that I polled, < 25% like the current branding. That’s really not ideal but maybe the sentiment will improve over time. ~38% say to give it a chance and willing to see where things go. ~38% think we need a change. Keep in mind, these are dedicated MvX ppl. Likely much less favorable outside of MvX but not necessarily.

Clearly, a significant % believe that there is an issue; there just is not a consensus about how to address it yet. Ignoring or being overly sensitive is not going to help us find solutions or form a coherent identity. In the end, some of this is preference, some of it is objective, and there will be no counterfactual world to see how things could have played out differently to compare it to. We will never know who would have been right in the end. We only get to run the simulation once.

Regarding the xPortal - this is one of the core theses that we have proposed since Maiar. Maybe you have missed it. Beni has talked about super app forever and you can read Sasu post on April 4. He makes really good points as always. We just still have to wait and see how things go.

I do believe it is more straightforward to onboard everyone to the MultiversX ecosystem through the xPortal financial superApp.

It is clearer to market, to discuss about it. If you market the chain, you need to discuss at least 10 minutes with each person to explain why and how is the MultiversX system better than other general purpose blockchains.

It is a great idea to onboard all the participants to the ecosystem by downloading the app and via the app they will directly see the benefits of using and building on top of MultiversX.

Ehh… I hate the term “number go up” this immediatelly connects us with the average crypto bro that only wants to make money and actually has no idea of the tech, nor even uses it.

Okay so they didn’t promise anything and never used the words you claimed they used in their ‘promise’.

Anyways, while I am also not a big fan of the name MultiversX (not because its hard to pronounce or hard to write or hard to remember or gives connections to Metaverse (for me it really does not), but because it sounds weird), I really think we should not change it.

Yet another rebrand will only do harm. I am very certain. In fact I know it.

Everytime someone outside of MultiversX talks negatively about MultiversX, they always say “ahh the chain that has done 1000 rebrands” even though there was literally only one rebrand: Elrond → MultiversX.

Of course this is FUD and the people saying this are absolute morons, but we have to acknowledge that by rebranding yet another time, we will only confirm their bias and other people may also pick up on that stupid argument.

To add injury to insult, the current rebranding is not complete yet as some websites still display “Elrond”. Why is that? Not because the BD/Marketing team sucks at rebranding but because these websites are just slow to update these things. In particular some CEXes took months to make the image+name change.

Any online presence on Twitter or other platforms is reset to zero (as we now go under a new name). Marketing and BD team have new work for a couple of months (which they could have used to do actual work instead of working on another rebrand).

Website needs changes, the blockchain and code needs many changes (as robert said, it took them months and months to change and rebrand everything).

In summary, it will take at least a quarter, maybe half a year to complete the rebrand. All of this is lost time that could have been used to do other stuff and work on actual BD and actual marketing.

All previous marketing for MultiversX ultimately loses it’s value and becomes (almost) worthless.
And keep in mind the money the Foundation has at hand: not much.
A rebrand is no cheap undertaking. Spending millions on that is simply a waste of money - and will take down the price of EGLD since they have to sell the EGLD to pay for their bills.

And finally, i am very very very sure that if the price of EGLD would be 3-4x right now from where it is, we wouldn’t even be discussing this.

Anyways, I am against rebranding another time. Waste of money, does not give us any benefits, MultiversX would still be there (according to your proposal). Also you need to differentiate between MultiversX and the MultiversX Foundation - very different. One is the chain, the other is the Foundation, because in your texts you use them synonymously all the time. (and yes, other chains have the same naming scheme - “Name” for blockchain, “Name Foundation” for the foundation).