Threshold
JAM is not the same thing as Polkadot. This request seems to be antithetical to the description of Polkadot and JAM as described in Gav's post here: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/introducing-a-new-jam-token/13029/43
Polkadot needs a fresh narrative, and none fits better than JAM.
It’s the perfect chance to unite vision with momentum.
As I’ve understood, JAM is a new protocol. In fact, I understand JAM is a protocol that is not blockchain specific, although it can have blockchains as services within it. On the other hand, Polkadot, as of today, is a blockchain network, a sharded one, that hosts parachains and provides a shared security via the relay chain.
As Gavin Wood mentioned in his recent comment on the forum:
[quote="gavofyork, post:43, topic:13029"]
Last year, the Polkadot stakeholders voted in favour of using the JAM protocol as part of a future technical upgrade path.
It is conceivable that other protocols and tokens may decide the same.
[/quote]
Based on this idea, and ref 682, it could happen that Polkadot’s relay chain is eventually replaced by the JAM protocol.
With these concepts in mind, after reading your proposal I am confused as to whether you are proposing to rebrand the DOT token (change token name to JAM) or the entire Polkadot network (name, blockchain, token, etc) to JAM? Or something else?
I found it confusing that sometimes you refer to “$DOT” and “$JAM”, are you referring to tokens? To a blockchain network? or to a protocol? I would appreciate it if you could please clarify this aspect.
Edited
This question has been on my mind for a while. I even started a forum post about a related (but different) topic. https://forum.polkadot.network/t/introducing-a-new-jam-token . And while I’m still sitting sitting on the fence about it, I may have started leaning slightly to the AYE side lately, and voted symbolically with 1 DOT.
On a fundamental level: The (current) DOT token will power the (future) JAM network, this is safe to say at this point. But of course, the JAM network is quite a different beast compared to the Polkadot network, and therefore a rebranding to match its future purpose seems not completely unreasonable. A rebranding may in fact be the best way to relay to the wider crypto world what a seismic shift JAM represents.
For the avoidance of doubt, when I speak out in favour of a rebranding, this is only so long as there is NO CHANGE to tokenomics. If a rebranding were to also change tokenomics or even introduce a new JAM token, I would be strongly opposed to it.
OP also stated “This WFC reduces the possibility of a new JAM token, because DOT would be just called JAM.” This makes a lot of sense to me. In a way, rebranding DOT, is an “insurance” against someone else launching a JAM token and capturing a lot of value with it.
At the end of day, I am still torn about the question, and I can really see both sides of the argument. Obviously, a rebranding carries a lot of execution risk if not done properly. And of course there is a lot of sunk cost in the Polkadot brand. But it also represents a rather unique opportunity to change the narrative for the better. Maybe I myself should vote 51% AYE, 49% NAY on this :-)
In any case, I think it’s good to have this discussion out here in the open. And I am curious to see how voting for the WFC will turn out, it will be a useful public opinion poll.
Edited
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Wish For Change track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and five nay votes from ten available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The voters expressed strong opposition to the proposed change, citing concerns about potential negative consequences and inadequate justification for the shift. Many felt that the existing framework, particularly the significance of the native token, should remain intact and that the proposal lacked sufficient rationale to alter the established narrative. Additionally, there were calls for broader public discussion before any changes were implemented. Overall, the sentiment reflected a commitment to maintaining the status quo in favor of Polkadot's established identity.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Nay - Just having one of the Polkadot ETF's approved changes public sentiment of DOT since it signifies institutional interest which will also bring institutional capital to the ecosystem. That's how DOT gets a fresh start for the long term.
PolkaWorld votes NAY
We don’t believe DOT has failed in building cultural identity. While the proposal to rebrand it as JAM may be well-intentioned — aiming to offer a fresh narrative to the broader public — it risks erasing years of community sentiment and cultural capital that the existing ecosystem has accumulated.
Looking at other ecosystems, rebranding as a means of reshaping perception is a highly uncertain strategy — and can even backfire. The most well-known example is Facebook’s rebrand to Meta.
Ask yourself: what comes to mind when you hear “Meta”?
Do we still remember it as the platform that launched the social networking era? Has the new name made people genuinely excited about its metaverse vision? If anything, Meta’s influence has diminished, and user resonance with its new identity remains weak.
Meta isn’t an isolated case. Many rebranding efforts aimed at repositioning end up failing to shift public perception. The name may change, but users’ emotions and mental models often stay the same — or worse, the brand loses the familiarity and trust it once held.
In our view, changing public perception of DOT doesn’t require changing the name.
Instead, perception should evolve organically — through consistent building, meaningful progress, and clear storytelling. That’s how both the community and the outside world will come to feel that Polkadot has changed — in a way that’s credible, lasting, and grounded in trust.
If we’re serious about evolving the Polkadot protocol — in architecture, developer ecosystem, economic design, and community mindset — there are better ways to tell that story. But rebranding it as “JAM” and redefining its role as the foundation of trustless Web3 computation? That’s the worst way to do it.
Read all feedback here.
✅ Why Vote YES
• A Brand for the Future: The JAM Chain reflects a broader vision beyond parachains—trustless, scalable supercomputing. A new name aligns with this new identity.
• Developer-Friendly Repositioning: The DOT brand is strongly tied to parachains. JAM lowers that barrier, appealing to a new generation of builders working on AI, computation, and smart agents.
• CoreTime Utility Clarity: As CoreTime becomes JAM’s main product, purchased via the JAM token, the rename better matches real economic activity on-chain.
• Psychological Reset: $JAM sends a strong signal: this isn’t the “old Polkadot”—this is the protocol for the next era of decentralized computation.
⸻
❌ Why Vote NO
• Loss of Brand Equity: DOT is recognized across the world. Years of brand development—websites, ambassadors, events, marketing—would be partly discarded or require rework.
• User Confusion Risk: Transitioning token names across exchanges, wallets, explorers, and media could confuse users, especially those less active in governance.
• High Coordination Costs: Wallets, parachain teams, CEXs, media, and documentation would all need synchronized updates. This complexity is hard to manage at scale.
• No Immediate Change in Functionality: The rename is symbolic for now. There’s no technical or economic upgrade proposed with this rebranding.
• Emotional Attachment to Polkadot: For many, Polkadot is more than a name. The community may resist such a drastic shift in identity.
⸻
🎯 Conclusion
This proposal is not just about renaming a token. It’s about deciding what story we want to tell the world. Do we double down on the legacy of Polkadot, or do we embrace a bold new identity with JAM that aligns with the protocol’s evolution?
Whether you support the rebrand or not, this is a pivotal moment to define the narrative, audience, and ambitions of the network going forward.
TruthDAO votes NAY.
This proposal clashes too strongly with current market perception. Even the MATIC rebrand has yet to yield any clearly positive impact. There are already numerous cautionary tales showing that simply changing a token’s name brings little to no benefit.
If we aim to elevate the Polkadot protocol across its architecture, developer ecosystem, economic model, and community mindset, there are far better ways to communicate that. Rebranding it under the JAM name to redefine its role as Web3’s trustless computing infrastructure is, in our view, the worst possible approach.
You can read our full feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
🗳️ Delegate
On behalf of the 🌶️ Hungarian Polkadot DAO 🌶️:
While the JAM vision is ambitious and forward-looking, it is too early to commit to a full rebrand from $DOT to $JAM. The protocol is still in development, and its success is not guaranteed. The community should prioritize stability, clear communication, and alignment with actual product readiness before making such a significant change. This approach preserves trust, minimizes risk, and ensures that when the JAM brand is launched, it is backed by real, operational technology.
You can view how the 🌶️ Hungarian Polkadot DAO 🌶️ evaluated this proposal on our public page here.
Very interesting proposal @Colorful Notion . I’ll need some time to digest everything this change represents fully.
However, first and foremost, I think it would be a shame to lose all the investment that has gone into marketing the Polkadot brand by switching to a drastically different name.
That said, you raise valid points about the new form of utility that JAM introduces. The “supercomputer” angle and quantum resistance narrative are likely to be strong themes for years to come, especially as Bitcoin and other chains will also need to adapt. This could give our ecosystem a critical edge.
Additionally, the logic behind the Polkadot name does feel increasingly outdated in the context of where the technology and ecosystem are heading. That said, I’m personally quite fond of the name Polkadot, and I imagine many in the community feel the same.
Nonetheless, this will be an interesting Wish for Change to follow.