Renaming "Parachains" to a More Generic Term

[filippoweb3]

This post discusses renaming “parachains” to a more widely accepted and known term. The intent is to reflect the evolving nature of the Polkadot ecosystem while improving visibility and accessibility.

Why Consider a Name Change?

I understand that renaming “parachains” will have significant implications for the Polkadot documentation, such as the Wiki and Substrate Docs. However, there are important reasons to start this discussion now.

1. Future-Proofing for Upcoming Changes

With the introduction of JAM, data entering Polkadot’s cores will not solely come from parachains. By next year, we’ll inevitably need to address this topic. Starting the conversation now gives us time to make the transition smooth.

2. Improving Visibility and SEO

The term “parachain” is closely tied to Polkadot, which limits its SEO potential and the ecosystem’s visibility. Using a more commonly recognized term could help align Polkadot with broader blockchain trends and technologies, making it easier to compare and promote.

3. Industry Alignment

“Parachain” implies that we are doing something entirely different from the rest of the blockchain space, which isn’t the case. Adopting a more widely understood term can highlight our technology’s compatibility with other blockchain solutions, improving comprehension and engagement.

Proposed Renaming: Polkadot Rollups

In recent months, I have explored the idea of renaming “parachains” to Polkadot Rollups. I am planning to use the term “rollup” throughout the Polkadot Wiki and here’s what I propose for the documentation:

• Add a dedicated page comparing Polkadot Rollups with optimistic and zk-rollups. This would include a comparison table, making it easy to share with investors, enthusiasts, and other stakeholders.

• Retain the term “parachain” in sections where rollup and parachain are synonymous.

• Replace “parachain” elsewhere with the term “rollup” to align with broader terminology and industry standards.

In the end, all data entering Polkadot could be seen as “rollup data,” which helps prepare for JAM’s launch without a rushed update to the documentation at that time.

Data on Current Usage and Potential Impact

Currently, the term “parachain” is used over 1,526 times in the Polkadot Wiki, yet the Wiki only receives around 73,000 visits per month. I strongly believe that updating the terminology to “rollup” will significantly increase Polkadot’s visibility in the broader blockchain ecosystem.

Community Feedback

Here are some early tests I conducted to gauge community sentiment around this change:

• Polkadot Wiki GitHub Issue

• X Reply - 55 reshares and 400+ likes, indicating strong interest and engagement with the term.

• X Post

• X Poll

• original X post about this Forum article

Conclusion and Suggestions

I am not advocating for completely abandoning the term “parachains,” but rather transitioning to a broader term that reflects the evolving role of parachains within Polkadot. “Parachains” can remain in technical documentation, but in more general contexts, we should consider using:

• Polkadot Rollups

• Polkadot Trustless Rollups

• Trustless Rollups

These terms could then be abbreviated to simply “rollups” where appropriate.

I would like to open the discussion and see if what I have in mind resonates with the broader community. If the community has a positive sentiment about this, we could start a Wish for Change referendum.

[shawntabrizi]

To make sure we are understanding the specific context of the renaming, can you write 3 sentences using the old and new terminology?

My gut is telling me that the most future proof naming here is just Web3 Applications and Web3 Services, but the context here might be more specific.

EDIT:

Here are some examples for me:

• We use Polkadot’s trustless rollup technology to secure Web3 applications and services.
• Polkadot’s mission is to provide a secure, scalable, and resilient platform for Web3 applications and services.
• You can build a Web3 application on Polkadot using the Polkadot SDK.

Perhaps in this last example, rollup makes more sense since Polkadot SDK is currently designed at building specifically blockchains, not general applications.

[aaronbassett]

@filippoweb3

I am not advocating for completely abandoning the term “parachains,” but rather transitioning to a broader term that reflects the evolving role of parachains within Polkadot.

What is the benefit of continuing to use Parachain in any context? I know there might be an almost emotional connection for some, but having multiple terms for the same thing will confuse many developers. Suppose we transition to using the term “Polkadot Rollups” going forward, which I hope we do. In that case, let’s commit to being consistent and only refer to them as “Polkadot Rollups” or “Rollups” and nothing else, with one exception.

Existing developers may not be aware that the term “Parachain” has been replaced with “Polkadot Rollup”, which could lead to confusion. I suggest that the first time they are referenced in a piece of content, it is always in a form similar to “a Polkadot Rollup (previously known as a Parachain)”, and then in the rest of the piece you can refer to them simply as “Rollups”.

[sodazone]

I’m not sure if the terms accurately capture the Polkadot differential. From my perspective, there are clear similarities and advantages:

• Parachains are similar to what are labeled as “based rollups,” meaning that the L1 validates the state transition with its own validator set, thereby inheriting cryptoeconomic guarantees, real finality and decentralization.
• The differentiation lies in interoperability. In Polkadot, you have trustless interoperability through XCM for execution.
• For interoperable state reading, the capability already exists with state proofs, eliminating the need for any message passing.

Maybe instead of renaming, articles and press releases about the differential could help. Additionally, using a more descriptive adjective would better reflect the difference, as “trustless rollup” falls short to communicate the edge (IMHO).

[NateHam1]

Thanks for kicking this off, it’s been something I’ve been toying with to do a WFC for. I believe it will help Polkadot (and selfishly the marketing) if we can better align with the industry-wide vernacular. I’m aware we’re kind of undercutting the value of parachains (and Polkadot to some extent) as the term Rollup doesn’t reflect that there are differences between ETH Rollups and Polkadot Rollups but I feel like we’ve isolated ourselves from narratives because we use different terminology.

If we move to a rollup phrasing I think we could better highlight aspects of how “ours are better” while being able to hopefully being able to be in the rollup discussions more broadly.

My thoughts on naming are;

• Rollups - just keep it broad
• Agile Rollups - aligns with agile coretime, nods towards flexibility/adaptability
• Polkadot Rollups - keep Polkadot brand on it but aligns with industry naming

Nate (Distractive)

[kopeboy]

I don’t agree because this way you would give credibility to Ethereum’s rollups, which are instead less secure than Polkadot parachains, enlarging their advantage.
Aldo, how will you differentiate between current parachains and the different things that will use JAM? What were you referring to and how would you call them?

[filippoweb3]

Hey @kopeboy, the Wiki will have a page explaining what Polkadot rollups are; parachains can still be used in relevant technical documentation where a rollup is a parachains (in the future, this will not necessarily be true). JAM will have the corechains service hosting parachains, in that service parachains and rollups is similar. But JAM will also allow the creation of other services, where parachains is definitely not the right terminology to use. Essentially, JAM is a rollup reactor (citing Gavin here), and the current Polkadot will be just a special case within JAM.

“this way, you would give credibility to Ethereum’s rollups.” I definitely do not agree with this. it’s not about credibility, it’s about adopting a term that most people know. Just an example: I told a friend what I am trying to do here, and he said: “oh, parachains are like rollups? I did not realize that.” Adopting the term “rollup” will allow us to place Polkadot back into the discussion when it comes to where should new businesses deploy a rollup.

[filippoweb3]

Hey @shawntabrizi, sure. I would like to stress that I am not advocating a complete departure from the term “parachains”. The term can still be used in relevant docs specific to parachains, i.e., where a rollup is a parachain (currently the only case on Polkadot).

In the Academy material, I would state that a parachain is a rollup (chain) and then explain how the Polkadot rollup system differs from others.

I would do the same in the Substrate Docs. We could keep parachains as a main terminology OR say that “we use the term rollup chain from now on to refer to parachians” (IMO this would be best).

In the Wiki, I would suggest to

• explain how parachains are basically rollup chains
• compare Polkadot rollup with others on a dedicated page
• remove the term parachain and replace it with rollup or rollup chain on most pages
• leave parachains in some specific guides

Regarding your examples, I think they all make sense, and we could add some more context to it:

• We use Polkadot’s rollup technology to secure Web3 applications and services.
• Polkadot’s mission is to provide a secure, scalable, and resilient platform for Web3 applications and services.
• You can build a Web3 application on Polkadot using the Polkadot SDK. To benefit from Polkadot’s interoperability and security, you can plug your rollup into a Polkadot core by purchasing coretime.

We must put ourselves into business people wanting to deploy their solutions on a web3 infrastructure. In my experience, those people always want a comparison table between different existing solutions. The problem with utilizing “parachains” is that it raises questions like “Why is Polkadot not using rollups?”, “What is the difference between a parachain and a rollup?”, etc.

Now, given all Gav speeches about JAM, saying that JAM is a rollup reactor, that Polkadot essentially is a rollup chain, we need to embrace the fact that Polkadot is a rollup chain, that Polkadot has rollups, and that these rollups are similar to Ethereum rollups BUT with some (significant) differences that can benefit enterprises (scalability, security because Polkadot rollup tech always checks stuff, etc.). I would not use the term cynical because cynical is a negative term, and I would instead deploy an optimistic rollup rather than a cynical one.

My suggestion is to “play simple” and just use Polkadot rollups when generally speaking, rollup chain when talking about existing L1s deployed in Polkadot, and just rollups when there are multiple repetitions in the same page / doc. When there is the need to go into more detail, we can explain how their rollups are being secured.

[ThomasR]

@filippoweb3

We must put ourselves into business people wanting to deploy their solutions on a web3 infrastructure. In my experience, those people always want a comparison table between different existing solutions. The problem with utilizing “parachains” is that it raises questions like “Why is Polkadot not using rollups?”, “What is the difference between a parachain and a rollup?”, etc.

100% agree

I definitely think we need to align terms and think as a “Sales/B2B” team.
People need to understand with simple words.

[kopeboy]

I was not suggesting of calling anything that can be done on JAM “parachain”, but my point is that it shouldn’t even be “rollups”, as in my humble opinion it will create confusion with Ethereum rollups (which can we agree are different from Polkadot ones?). Maybe some technical explanation to justify the “rollup” term in our context is needed for us plebs…

[burgui]

In my view, the name change could lead to confusion and imply that Polkadot is somehow aligning with EVM. It might be best to wait for the launch of JAM and then consider renaming everything in accordance with that. The term zkRollup has nothing to do with the structure and function of a parachain. “JAM-Rollup” could make sense if it eventually refers to data coming from JAM, but renaming parachains as “Polkadot Rollups” diminishes the unique structure that parachains represent today. It risks positioning Polkadot as a competitor to zkRollups, like those from Polygon, which are fundamentally different—even if marketed similarly.

[tomi]

Do we want to chase after the next shiny thing inside the bubble? Or do we want to address the Total Addressable Market?

This is what rollups are for most people:

Even inside Web3 rollups are sometimes seen as “parasitic” and a failed scaling approach.

I like Web3 Services @shawntabrizi suggested. Although you still have to explain the Web3 bit, that term might be more JAM-aligned and future proof.

[tomi]

“Intel inside” → “Powered by Polkadot”.

Would one of these suffice…

• Decentralized internet services, powered by Polkadot.
• Onchain services, powered by Polkadot.
• Polkadot-powered onchain-services.

What says @DotDotApe ?

[shawntabrizi]

@tomi I dont think we need to work that hard to explain Web3 Applications and Services.

People are already used to and familiar with Cloud Applications and Services today.

And we can use that to easily have people understand where Polkadot fits in.

First we need to explain to them the difference between Web2 and Web3, which is resilience.

Then you explain that Polkadot is literally a server for any kind of application or service that wants to inherit resilience from Polkadot:

The final thing is to describe to people what kinds of applications and services need Web3 resilience, because we aren’t bringing everything to Web3.

Key parts of an application make the most sense on Web3:

• identity
• payments
• ownership
• peer-to-peer interactions
• marketplaces
• cross-border scenarios
• community control / incentivization
• humanitarian needs
• low trust b2b / b2c scenarios
• etc…

And that you can build applications and services which use a mixture of Web2 and Web3, providing the best of both worlds.

@tomi

“Intel inside” → “Powered by Polkadot”.

Yes, we should have been doing and incentivizing this for a long time.

• Powered by Polkadot
  • When they use the SDK or tech stack, or in general
• Secured by Polkadot
  • When they are an application or service
• Funded by Polkadot
  • When they are receiving treasury support

I think we could build a system which both helps us keep a good ecosystem map, while encouraging teams to include such a banner: [Request] Decentralized Ecosystem Map · Issue #3 · polkadot-developers/bounties · GitHub

[mister_cole]

I understand your logic, but empiricism > logic, and history has pretty categorically shown that our insistence on nonstandard jargon, however accurate it is, does not work–it just confuses people and contributes to the widespread impression that Polkadot is abstruse and forbidding.

[tymat]

I think the word ‘trustless’ is counterintuitive to the general public who may not have a good technical vocabulary. It’s also a bit paradoxical because the term actually means shifting trust from a 3rd party to various cryptgraphic and game theoretical aspects of the protocol. I think “Polkadot Secure Rollups” would be more appropriate.

I also like “Connected By Polkadot” because it’s kind of a play on “Connect the Dots”

[filippoweb3]

@burgui is not about structure or function here. It is about what is pushed to a Polkadot core. It’s rollup data. If that rollup data comes from a chain, a contract, or something else is up to the specific documentation to explain the details. Polkadot is a roll-up chain, and JAM will be no different.

[filippoweb3]

@shawntabrizi @tomi, I am not discussing how to market Polkadot to different categories of customers. I agree about “Secured by Polkadot” and all, and I remember pushing this last year via social media.

Here I am discussing a major rename and shift in mentality when speaking at events, to investors and enthusiasts. Polkadot is a rollup chain, JAM will be a rollup chain/reactor. As such, whatever goes into Polkadot cores is rollup data. If this data is coming from a chain, contract, or anything else it does not matter. Polkadot ELVES is basically Polkadot’s Rollup Technology, which is VERY different from zk-rollup and optimistic rollups. Using the term “rollups” allows us to easily compare what we do with other ecosystems, and gets us way better visibility. Parachains are becoming a special case within the type of rollup Polkadot can support. As such we cannot use that term anymore within general documentation.

[gsanjaime]

I would be in favor of using the term rollup, but this change creates a bit of a conflict for me. As far as I know Polkadot is a layer 0 and its parachains would be on layer 1.
I believe that currently the rollups we know of are built on layer 2.

I asked Polkadot AI about this and he gave me this answer:
Polkadot is a layer 0 blockchain platform. This means that it provides shared security and secure interoperability to layer 1 blockchains. Layer 1 blockchains that connect to Polkadot are also called parachains, as their transactions are processed in parallel by Polkadot.
Rollups are a layer 2 scaling solution used to increase the transaction capacity of a layer 1 blockchain. They work by grouping (“rolling up”) multiple transactions into a single transaction which is then published on the layer 1 blockchain.

[decentration]

I strongly believe that updating the terminology to “rollup” will significantly increase Polkadot’s visibility in the broader blockchain ecosystem.

100% yes i strongly agree with your strong belief.

There’s no doubt people havent swarmed into polkadot purely because they dont understand these new terms.

Something as simple as renaming so that it aligns with the general industry terms in this instance is certainly better than trying to differentiate, because its a very technical thing.

This definitely fits into the “what small changes can have a big impact”.

For that reason, i am very bullish on the idea of renaming parachains to “rollups”.

And if we want to differentiate within that general term it can be what you have mentioned or:

• “parachain rollups”
• “realistic rollups”
• “pessimistic rollups” (but that is a bit negative).
• “secure rollups”, because optimistic rollups arent that secure.
• “finality rollups”
• etc

But Rollups, is something that is know, and if it is a free asset sitting in the mindspace of the general industry, then its perhaps foolish to not tap into it.

I always had an issue with the term “parachains”, and now you have pinpointed why that is. thanks!