Rename "SablierLockup" to "SablierVesting"

[PaulRBerg]

We're merging the three Lockup contracts into one. How about we name it SablierVesting instead?

Here's the corroboration to my rationale:

One disadvantage is the backward-compatibility issues — references to Lockup, the historical IDs of the streams etc.

cc @sablier-labs/engineers for feedback

Relevant for #1069.

[PaulRBerg]

Or maybe SablierVestingERC20 or SablierVestingFungible?

Since we intend to add support for NFT vesting.

[smol-ninja]

Between SablierLockup vs SablierVesting, on ChatGPT's summary, ChatGPT is trained on existing words, so it may not understand the definition of new words for product name (It would not have known what Ethereum is before Ethereum became so popular). It's up to us how we communicate Lockup as a vesting protocol to users and how they and the LLM models perceive it.

As of today, isn't ChatGPT less creative than humans when it comes to inventing/coining new products?

---

Between SablierVesting and SablierVestingERC20 / SablierVestingFungible, I'd vote for SablierVesting. When you say vesting, people, in my opinion, will always relate it to ERC20 tokens and rarely to NFT tokens. That also means we may be interested in coining a new name to refer to NFT streaming. So SablierVestingABC sounds over engineered to me.

[smol-ninja]

On my vote, Lockup is the name we coined to represent our vesting protocol. And I like it. So I am in favour keeping it.

[PaulRBerg]

Thanks for the quick response!

ChatGPT doesn't know about Ethereum, yes, and is not creative, yes, but I don't see how that is relevant here?

• Good naming for a smart contract relies on having the name accurately reflect what the contract does.
• "Lockup" isn't a word we invented. It already has a well-defined meaning in the broader financial world, but we have repurposed it to mean 'vesting' in the SablierLockup product series.

SablierVestingABC sounds over engineered to me

It's just a way to differentiate between the fungible and the non-fungible contracts, i.e., VestingFungible and VestingNonFungible. We could choose to omit Fungible in the former name, but that would mean that the fungibility is implied. That's a fair assumption but I find it clearer with the explicit name.

[PaulRBerg]

The strong case against a rename to SablierVesting is the refactor cost and the backward-compatibility concerns. They might not be worth it.

[smol-ninja]

Thanks for your reply. I would like to criticise some of your statements.

Good naming for a smart contract relies on having the name accurately reflect what the contract does

As per this argument, Aave, Lido, Sky (fka Maker) etc. seem like a bad choice of names for those protocols. I don't see how one can figure out what they do by reading their names. I am not saying they are good choice of names either but they exist, and users can connect those names with what those protocols do.

"Lockup" isn't a word we invented. It already has a well-defined meaning in the broader financial world, but we have repurposed it to mean 'vesting' in the SablierLockup product series

Fair point that we did not invent the word. But we used it for a product name. As @andreivladbrg mentioned below, Lockup (which requires locking up funds upfront) and Flow (which streams tokens without the requirement of locking up funds upfront) sound complementary to each other. Andrei also made a great point that, once can use Flow for vesting as well: a new kind of linear vesting of tokens that does not require locking up funds upfront. At the same time, one can also use Lockup for payrolls, grants etc where sender wants to make upfront deposit for several business related reasons.

ChatGPT doesn't know about Ethereum, yes, and is not creative, yes, but I don't see how that is relevant here?

Its relevant here because the rationale mentioned in this OP is based on ChatGPT's response. So questioning how ChatGPT comes up with new ideas becomes relevant.

I'd like to hear your take on this.

[PaulRBerg]

• Sky has a terrible nomenclature, and I am completely against their approach to using invented 3-letter words (vat, wad) just because they look nicely formatted.
• The others, Aave, Lido, etc. — I don't know how they have named their contracts, but you have invoked their brand names. Sablier is a unique brand name — it's not a generic word.

---

Andrei has indeed made a good point that has made me change my mind. We can stick with Lockup.

rationale mentioned in this OP is based on ChatGPT's response

ChatGPT only acted as a corroborative source for my point. It's the point that should be criticized, not the corroboration because that made logical sense.

Andrei's point that Lockup does more than vesting is what refuted my point.

P.S. I shouldn't have called the ChatGPT screenshot the 'rationale'. It was just a corroboration. Sorry for that.

[andreivladbrg]

IMO "lockup" is better than "vesting" for our case - it goes well with Flow as well. It’s our method to differentiate between "streaming" contracts: one points out that there is a deposit required upfront, the other points out that there is no deposit required.

The reason we want this differentiation between them is that one could argue that they can use Flow for vesting as well (who are we to stop someone from doing so? 😅).

Regarding the methodology used for this proposal (GPT), I believe it’s very hard to obtain something accurate and a clear view of the recommendation without having a specific LLM trained fully on our product’s/ business views, etc.

So, to put it this way: I wouldn’t take GPT’s word for granted on complex decisions like this one (also for the reasons Shub shared above).

[PaulRBerg]

Great criticism.

I agree with the first part, so we can keep using Lockup.

I disagree with what you said at the end per the explanation given above.

[PaulRBerg]

Closing as per agreement.