Should we rebrand Warpcast to Farcaster?

We separated Warpcast (the app) from Farcaster (the protocol) a few years ago. 

We've heard from many new users that this is very, very confusing. People hear about Farcaster, search in the app store, can't find anything called Farcaster and then churn.

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

Assuming there's a desire to maintain a standalone protocol, is there an opportunity to rebrand that to some other third thing?

Warpcast -> Farcaster
Farcaster -> The Cast Protocol

Tbh I’m not attached to farcaster as the name for the protocol, I just think it is actually important for the client to have a different name from the protocol

I like the idea @runninyeti.eth suggested here. If the client becomes Farcaster maybe there’s an opportunity to rename the protocol for the sake of preserving this distinction

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

Tbh I’m not attached to farcaster as the name for the protocol, I just think it is actually important for the client to have a different name from the protocol

I like the idea @runninyeti.eth suggested here. If the client becomes Farcaster maybe there’s an opportunity to rename the protocol for the sake of preserving this distinction

https://warpcast.com/runninyeti.eth/0x2f31eb1d

Farcaster and Farcaster Protocol is maybe fine but I would give bonus points for a name that preserves credible neutrality

Imo warpcast should abstract away farcaster and remove it from its messaging to prevent confusing users before renaming itself to farcaster

Bluesky doesn’t mention atproto anywhere in its messaging for example

Either way, the protocol needs to be abstracted from consumers. They don’t care about the protocol, they care about the value offered by the app

Either way, the protocol needs to be abstracted from consumers. They don’t care about the protocol, they care about the value offered by the app

https://warpcast.com/stephancill/0x0c3ba404