2026-01-11 06:29:38

Recently, there have been rumors that a certain AGI project might initiate a brand strategy adjustment, unifying its name as Fabric. The logic behind this is quite interesting. If they really go down this path, it’s likely to be an attempt to align the project’s brand with the underlying protocol’s name, eliminating market perception ambiguities and helping ecosystem participants better understand the relationship between the two. This kind of integration approach is becoming increasingly common in Web3—keeping the brand and protocol name consistent indeed reduces user comprehension costs.

From an application perspective, whether it’s AI systems or humanoid robot solutions, the core value proposition points in the same direction: providing services to humans. The exploration of merging these two tracks is becoming a new industry hotspot. Brand unification might be aimed at better supporting this diversified service ecosystem. What do you think about this direction?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

gas_fee_therapist

· 2h ago

Another rebranding, will it last more than two years this time? Haha

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 01-11 06:56

Rename to Fabric? It feels like just wanting to shed the previous baggage and start over. Using the same name for the brand is indeed a bold move. Combining AI and robotics—it's called ecosystem integration in a nice way, but frankly, isn't it just riding the trend? I've seen this kind of move many times, and few survive in the end. How much does unifying the name improve user experience? The key is whether the product itself can compete.

View OriginalReply0

PanicSeller

· 01-11 06:51

Rename to Fabric? We've seen this trick many times. The key is whether the subsequent ecosystem can keep up; otherwise, it's just a rebranded money-grabbing machine.

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 01-11 06:45

Renaming to Fabric? Honestly, this approach is a bit old-fashioned, but it does clarify things. I agree that having the same name as the brand reduces understanding costs, but the question is, does the market really care... Most people are still focused on price trends. By the way, the integration of AI and robots is indeed impressive, but it still depends on who can implement it first. Merely branding the integration isn't very useful. The name Fabric just sounds so-so to me; I wonder if it's just my aesthetic sense. I've seen many Web3 projects rebrand, but how many of them actually survive... Can this time be different?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter007

· 01-11 06:32

Rename to Fabric? Sounds like just wanting to spend money on brand awareness, but this trick has been rotten in Web3 for a long time. --- Wait, can AI and robots integration really provide services? Feels like it's still in the bragging stage. --- The same-name branding is basically just a good story to tell during fundraising. --- The name Fabric is really bland, lacking any memorable point. --- Diverse service ecosystem? Sounds like an excuse for losing focus. --- This kind of integration approach isn't just covering up the awkwardness of protocols having no parents, haha. --- If the integration were truly successful, we'd have seen results by now. It's a bit late to talk about it now. --- Lower user understanding costs? Users simply don't understand and don't want to understand. --- They haven't even matured in humanoid robots, yet they're starting brand integration—are they planning to run away? --- Fabric sounds like a wallet name, so how did it become AGI?

View OriginalReply0