Disclaimer: These are just some thoughts - no real plan of action unless community support is there and which case we would get to work on spearheading this.
You know Toyota sells luxury cars, but under the Lexus brand? (Which is doing really well, btw)
Or how Proctor and Gamble has different products underneath it, all instantly recognizable?
In the long term it maybe prudent to switch to this type of positioning.
Let me explain a bit more about why I think like this.
How we’re deploying products is very common to what the rest of the society is accustomed to - it’s a strat called line extension.
The logic is traditionally is companies would save marketing costs by borrowing the “strength” of an existing brand name. Attaching something unknown to something that is unknown.
Even when you think about it logically - you would think that’s a smart move right? Well, it’s not that simple.
What ends up happening is you end up “diluting” the core product and causing confusion among users.
Also perception/positioning - let’s go back to the Toyota/Lexus example.
Which would you rather buy - a high end luxury Toyota, or a Lexus?
The difference is clear. And even though it’s literally just perception from the consumer it is what MAKES a huge chunk of Toyota’s profits.
Another strong example: what if Coke made a lemon-flavored cola?
Wouldn’t work. Everyone knows Coke to be a dark brown liquid with a fizzy and slight burning sensation.
That’s why they made sprite.
Imagine Airbnb trying to sell you concert tickets. Or Uber delivering mail. Or USPS delivering groceries.
I’m not saying we can’t succeed by using the Yearn brand on everything - plenty of companies do that. GE, for example.
GE makes literally everything - airplane engines, appliances, medicine, nuclear reactors, idek at this point.
GE is CENTURY+ OLD company and enters industries usually dominated by other big players - little room for startup competition with little capital to enter and undermine them.
They acquire startups with high margins that fund R&D for their larger operations. Totally different from us.
When you’re the biggest or have first mover advantage plus the lindy effect on your side - line extensions like GE, Apple, Microsoft, or other tech giants work.
In my opinion:
- Earn separated and marketed as an “lending autoswitcher”
- Zap - writes itself. Zap is totally fine name IMO - succint, and describes perfectly. Honestly wouldn’t mind seeing further intergration with Zapper or something - if not would need way to distinguish from Zapper - maybe like Zap DEX or something. Would be easy to separate IMO.
- APR - feel is a bit redundant, especially with stats.yearn and feel the yearn.
- Vaults - I honestly see Vaults as the main product of Yearn. It best fits the “you earn” culture we’re trying to cultivate with yield farming. I would elect Vaults to be the one that stays.
This problem will likely be more of a pressing issue as more products are being released by Andre - since you’re inviting more competition. For example, Yearn is now usually being compared against AAVE, Compound, etc. (even though they work in tandem).
What happens when yInsure is revealed? Suddenly Nexus Mutual becomes a competitor. If they were all separate then it can be Earn vs whatever, Zap vs whatever, Yearn Vaults vs (who? I feel we’re #1 here), and then whatever name yInsure vs Nexus Mutual.
I hope my thoughts come across clearly - if you want more commentary, let me know and I’ll elaborate in future posts.
- Spin off products
- Maintain umbrella brand