Renaming "Parachains" to a More Generic Term

Ecosystem
1

Screenshot 2024-10-15 at 16.45.06
Screenshot 2024-10-15 at 16.45.061910×1068 83.6 KB

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:

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.

6 Likes
2

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.

3

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”.

4

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).

5

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)