In crypto, discussions usually focus on transaction speed, fees, decentralization, and network effects. But a popular article from CryptoComLearn turns to a different factor: naming. Written in a satirical tone, the piece revisits a long list of awkward, absurd, and self-defeating cryptocurrency names, arguing that some projects were undermined before they even had a chance to compete seriously.
Deadcoins as a record of branding failures
The article points to Deadcoins.com, a website that catalogs failed or abandoned crypto projects, as a showcase of some of the industry’s worst branding decisions. Among the names highlighted are Scamcoin, AssPennies, Fck Banks Coin, Fellatiocoin, Groincoin, and Crimsoncoin. The message is clear: a name that sounds vulgar, unserious, or openly negative can instantly damage a project’s credibility in the eyes of users and investors.
The list goes further with coins such as AllAgesCoin, Alcohoin, Allahcoin, Boringcoin, Crapcoin, FAILCoin, FraudCoin, Furrycoin, KarpelesCoin, and MtGoxcoin. Some were jokes from the start, while others became punchlines after failing to gain traction. Together, they reflect a period in crypto when branding often seemed like an afterthought.
Odd naming is not limited to dead projects
The article also argues that strange naming remains visible even among tradable assets. Looking at listings on Cryptopia, it cites examples such as Unobtanium Condensate, FootyCash, SiberianChervonets, LiteDoge, Athenian Warrior Token, GayCoin, KangarooBits, BenjiRolls, StopTrumpCoin, WeAreSatoshi, FuzzBalls, HodlBucks, and Cthulu Offerings. The author is not evaluating their technology, but rather highlighting how difficult many of these names are to take seriously as brands.
Name recognition can shape adoption
One of the more serious examples in the article is Chichicoin, launched in 2014 and described by Deadcoins as malware containing a wallet stealer and key logger. The piece also briefly mentions names like Metaverse ETP, KuCoin Shares, and Walton, suggesting that some projects may be technically ambitious yet still burdened by clunky or unmemorable branding.
The broader argument is that naming matters in an industry driven by narrative, community, and attention. The article even asks readers to imagine a different history: if Satoshi had not named the asset Bitcoin, but had chosen something awkward or ridiculous instead, would it still have achieved the same level of recognition? Its conclusion is not that branding outweighs technology, but that a clear, memorable name can be a meaningful competitive advantage in a crowded crypto market.