![Soft Consensus.jpg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmNcJAmBr49VQrkCimqnVj4hYpBNnTWnv9aGeVaG4NKTNq/Soft%20Consensus.jpg)

In our [recent update](https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/blockchain-update-platform-independent-state-files) the Steemit Team disclosed that we think a lot of potential lies in Soft Consensus. This isn’t to say that Hard Consensus isn’t important, critical even, only that the obsession with putting everything in Hard Consensus is creating a gap in the market that presents a unique opportunity for Steem.

<h1>TL;DR</h1>

What’s a better marketing term for “Soft Consensus?”
1. Soft Contracts
2. Smart Consensus
3. Make a different suggestion!

<h1>Blockchain Blindspot</h1>

Because people fail to distinguish between Hard and Soft Consensus, they don’t even see the potential lurking right in front of them. Information stored in Soft Consensus IS stored "in consensus."  The distinction is that this information does not motivate the blockchain protocol to perform unnecessary computations. 

<h1>What Web Developers Really Want</h1>

I believe that the failure to distinguish between these concepts has created a huge blindspot in the market. In my capacity as Head of Communications and Advocacy for Steemit I’ve spoken to hundreds of entrepreneurs and developers about the applications they are trying to build.

I can say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of features they are trying to develop using blockchain do not require that their code be executed by the network. That’s not to say that there are NO features that require decentralized code execution. Not at all. 

<h1>Smart Contracts Bad?</h1>

I think smart contracts are a brilliant innovation. I’m just saying that based exclusively on my experience with entrepreneurs and developers who are building blockchain applications, the vast majority of features they are trying to implement in their app objectively do not warrant smart contracts. 

These people are either misinformed or simply doing it that way to attempt to capitalize on “blockchain hype." Unfortunately they don't realize that the cost and friction of implementing features that way will knee-cap their application, and doom them to failure. Just look at how many projects which ICOed are now dead. 

<h1>Soft Consensus Limitations</h1>

Like everything, Soft Consensus has its limitations. Blockchain as a technology offers essentially 3 value propositions: transparency, immutability, and decentralized computing. If a feature only requires transparency and immutability, then the conclusion is simple: you *should* be using Soft Consensus. In such cases, it’s highly unlikely that you’re going to find a better protocol for powering those features than Steem due to its low cost, high speed, and vibrant community. 

<h3>Unique Value Proposition</h3>

When you find a powerful feature that your product offers that no one else does, we call that a “unique value proposition.” Unique Value Propositions are the foundation of any marketing strategy. So the question is, “How do we tell people about this Unique Value Proposition in way that gets them interested in our product?"

We need our own version of “Smart Contracts.” Every serious person in the blockchain world understands that there is nothing inherently “smart” about smart contracts, nor is there anything especially “contract-y.” But it uses terms we are all familiar with and it *hints* at features in a way that entices you to fall down the rabbit hole. I think something like that for Soft Consensus would deliver a ton of value to the Steem ecosystem.

Two terms I’ve been playing around with are:
1. Smart Consensus
2. Soft Contracts

<h1>Smart Consensus</h1>

While “consensus” is a somewhat technical term, it does have a standard definition, so even ordinary people are familiar with it. Certainly blockchain people are and they are a key demographic for Steem. Calling it “Smart” accomplishes a few things. First, it creates a dichotomy in the listener’s mind by implying that there is another type of consensus that *isn’t smart*. Second, it implies some kind of parallel with Smart Contracts. I believe our strongest argument for Soft Consensus is that it is a "smarter" way to store much of an application’s code on a blockchain. 

<h1>Priority #1</h1>

Whenever you’re marketing something, your objective is not to rationally convince people that your solution is technically superior. Nor is it your objective to explain what your product does. You have one simple objective: get them interested. Get them asking questions and frame the conversation so that you can go on a journey together during which you will discover how the product will reduce pain and increase pleasure. We’re looking for terms that help us get people interested and enable us to begin that journey with them.

<h1>Soft Contracts</h1>

This term again plays on the concept of Smart Contracts which is, without a doubt, the most successful marketing maneuver in the history of the blockchain space. Why not piggyback off of that success? Familiar terms make people more comfortable with novel concepts. In this context I think “Soft” is more descriptive than “Soft Consensus” because it is qualifying the word “contracts.” It implies that these are “contracts” which will not be enforced in a “hard way,” which is pretty accurate!

<h1>The Poll</h1>

But what do you think? Smart Consensus? Soft Contracts? Have other ideas? I’d love to hear them in the comment section below!

https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmP9f2i23FkFTsvMTSmKv2S8d5wA2Q8piEBWH5EVWbbp5b/post%20sig%20redrocks.jpg