How should the recurring payments opcodes be named?

[PaulRBerg]

Sharing my ideas categorized by terminological clusters:

1. Subscription cluster

• SUBSCRIBE
• SUBSCRIBEADJUST (name TBD, but we need a separate opcode due to the principle of separations of concerns + to enable multiple subscriptions between two users)
• UNSUBSCRIBE

2. Streaming cluster

• CREATESTREAM
• UPDATESTREAM
• DELETESTREAM

3. Pay cluster v1

• STARTPAYMENT
• UPDATEPAYMENT
• STOPPAYMENT

4. Pay cluster v1

• CREATEPAYMENT
• UPDATEPAYMENT
• DELETEPAYMENT

My vote goes to the Subscription cluster because:

• Subscriptions capture the use case better because it's more general purpose. Recall that the cadence of the payment opcodes is customizable (that is, the cadence need not be by-the-second only).
• The Pay clusters might mislead users into believing that the opcodes handle one-time payments; also, there's potential confusion with EIP-5920, which introduces a PAY opcode
• Streaming can be potentially confused with video and data streaming (the latter is especially relevant in a peer-to-peer context)

Further notes:

• The names are capitalized because that's the common practice with blockchain VM opcodes
• We can still refer to by-the-second subscriptions as "money streaming", but this would be an informal, peripheral use of the term.

Related: https://github.com/sablier-labs/company-discussions/discussions/32

Cc @sablier-labs/sabvm.

[IaroslavMazur]

If my understanding is correct, the OP suggests choosing one of the 4 sets of names for the SabVM-specific opcodes.

The "payment" term does sound inapropriate, for the reasons you've brought up above.

Now, between "subscription" and "stream", the latter feels like a way better fit for our context, for the following reasons:

1. "Streaming" is, arguably, closer to the concept of "real-time finance" than "subscription" is, imo. "Subscriptions" are more of a weekly+ thing, while "streaming" seems natural when describing a continous transfer of value, down to minutes or seconds.
2. For the reason above, I view "streaming" as a more basic/universal way of expressing the continuous transfer of value, whereas a "subscription" is a more concrete application of "streaming" (e.g. streaming value continuously, with a period of, say, a week/month).
3. You can't verbify "subscription", to refer to the active process of transferring value to someone else, similar to how you can say "I'm streaming them $X/day".
4. Conceptually, in the "subscribed" relation, the recepient is expected to provide the sender with smth in return, whereas you can "stream" someone value just for fun.

---

Streaming can be potentially confused with video and data streaming (the latter is especially relevant in a peer-to-peer context)

Semantics is heavily dependant on the context where the term is being used. To say that "streaming value" shouldn't be used in SabVM because of the risk of being confused with "streaming video/data" would mean not thinking too highly of our users, imo 😅

It's as if the preacher at a church, during his pre-Easter sermon, would avoid using the word "fasting", because it could be misinterpreted as the fasting that doesn't have any religious pretext. Or if we avoid using the term "Sablier", because anyone who knows French might confuse it for "hourglass".

Context is often necessary to understand what a word/phrase refers to, but it's a common thing. Otherwise, we'd have to have an order of magnitude more words which uniquely describe only 1 thing per word.

[PaulRBerg]

TLDR; monthly payments are discrete. It's misleading to refer to them as "streams".

Persuasive

Let me start by conceding that you made a persuasive case in favor of "streaming". I am still more inclined towards "subscription", but I am less convinced now that I was before.

Kindly asking @sablier-labs/everybody to participate in this discussion.

Maybe there's a 5th way we haven't thought of already?

Subscription vs Streaming

1. We've grown past the "real-time finance" meme/ copyright when we introduced non-streaming distribution curves in the UI. Also see this related discussion.
2. Calling a monthly subscription a "stream" is too much and overstretching the streaming meme. I recommend taking a look at all the definitions for the word "stream" provided by Merriam-Webster - they all imply something continuous, whereas monthly payments are discrete.
   • If a video came in data packets that arrived in monthly chunks, would you call that video streaming still?
   • Side note - this is why I think that we suffer from a bit of cognitive dissonance in the UI by referring to the Monthly Unlocks shapes as a 'stream', and why I favor refactoring the terminology of the smart contracts.
3. Good point, though you can use the past tense: "I subscribed to Foo for $5/day" OR you could say "I am paying Foo $5/month". It is not necessary to use the same semantic field when talking about SabVM users do.
4. Another good point - I verified it with ChatGPT, and you are right. But my retort is this - how many users would make payments just for fun without expecting anything in return from the recipient? We should strike a balance between semantic clarity and fitness-for-business-purpose.

Context for Semantics

It is true that context matters for semantics, but this is tangential and the examples you shared do not reflect on our problem situation:

• "Fasting" already has well-defined meanings in both the religious and the non-religious contexts. Whereas we are inventing a new context and new meaning with "money streaming", one which is at odds with the existing context (continuous vs discrete payments).
• Sablier is a brand name; it's not an explanatory term. "Subscription" and "streaming" are both explaining what the recurring payment opcodes do.

[IaroslavMazur]

General reply

I, personally, don't view the monthly payments as discrete - rather, as continuous, but wrt a bigger cycle (say, a year).

I don't think it'd be correct for us to try to draw a line between what should be considered "discrete" - and what's continuous, because, in general terms, such a line simply doesn't exist.

Given a certain scale/perspective, discrete/periodical becomes continuous. For example, during childhood (when days tend to pass by slowly), an event happening once a week feels very rare (i.e. "discrete"), while an adult can easily view this event occurance as continous, from the perspective of a month or a year.

The beauty of the "streaming" term is that it's generally applicable, while "subscription" sounds/feels more limited in what it conveys.

---

If a video came in data packets that arrived in monthly chunks, would you call that video streaming still?

Didn't think I'd ever get the occasion to use this bit of knowdlege in a debate, but, I guess, life is full of surprises: I heartily invite you to take a look at As Slow as Possible.

I bet that nobody would view a musical piece is "discrete" / not "continuous", no matter how often its notes are played.

---

though you can use the past tense

Yes, you can.

Although, for Present Continous (which most of the things people are discussing, probably, tend to be in), it's easier and more natural to say "I'm streaming Paul $5/mo" than "I'm subscribed to Paul for $5/mo" - the latter kinda adds an extra construction for the listener to decode to really understand what you're saying.

Actually, I've just had a revelation, and, I think, I know what has been bothering me about "subscriptions" this whole time, even though I couldn't describe it in words!

When A says "I'm subscribed to B", your first thought is that B must be giving something to A on a regular manner (like, a YouTube creator or a musician - to their subscribers). The fact that A is paying B is secondary - and, really, optional/inexistent (given the popular platforms like YT where hundreds of millions of people subscribe to others for free).

At the same time, when A says "I'm streaming to B", the focus is on the transfer from A - to B, while anything coming in the opposite direction (i.e. B -> A) isn't even suggested (and is, therefore, irrelevant/optional).

---

how many users would make payments just for fun without expecting anything in return from the recipient?

This is a good retort :)

What I was trying to communicate there is that "streaming" is a more general term, which includes both "subscriptions" and the "for-fun" payments from the example above, while the same can't be said about "subscriptions".

---

"Fasting" already has well-defined meanings in both the religious and the non-religious contexts. Whereas we are inventing a new context and new meaning with "money streaming", one which is at odds with the existing context (continuous vs discrete payments).

I agree that "fasting" is widely known in both contexts. However, this hasn't been the case forever.

Every now and then, someone needs to go against the flow to change the public perception of a thing.

Check out my conversation with ChatGPT on the terms that have changed their meaning during their lifetime (which required going against their conventional/previous meaning at some point.)

[PaulRBerg]

I have changed my mind, and I'm happy to go with the Streaming cluster now. I agree with most of what you said, except for the first section in your reply:

There is such a thing as Objective Knowledge, so a line between continuous and discrete certainly exists. Assuming otherwise is a form of subjectivity and relativism and that is a philosophical stance that we should reject if we wish to make technical progress.

I've just had a revelation, and, I think, I know what has been bothering me about "subscriptions" this whole time, even though I couldn't describe it in words!

That is indeed a good argument you made in those paragraphs.

"streaming" is a more general term, which includes both "subscriptions" and the "for-fun" payments

True

Every now and then, someone needs to go against the flow to change the public perception of a thing.

True

[IaroslavMazur]

I have changed my mind, and I'm happy to go with the Streaming cluster now

Happy to hear this!

---

There is such a thing as Objective Knowledge, so a line between continuous and discrete certainly exists. Assuming otherwise is a form of subjectivity and relativism and that is a philosophical stance that we should reject if we wish to make technical progress.

This is one of those things that I can't (yet) discuss fluently, without having properly researched the domain. One day, however, I hope to have "the talk" with you! (pun intended 🤣)

[PaulRBerg]

Based on @IaroslavMazur's arguments above, and the feedback we have received from our mastermind group at CSX, I am happy to consider this discussion closed.

The Streaming cluster has won. We will tentatively go with these opcode names:

• CREATESTREAM
• UPDATESTREAM
• DELETESTREAM

[IaroslavMazur]

Now that we've agreed on the cluster, let me ask you the following: what's your opinion on UPDATESTREAM vs EDITSTREAM?

FYI: I don't really have a strong preference for either of them. Just asking 🙂

[PaulRBerg]

Definitely UPDATESTREAM to keep it in line with CRUD.