I am considering the implementation of a new initiative aimed at enhancing the visibility of projects funded by the Polkadot treasury. Given the significant contributions these projects make to our ecosystem, I believe it is essential to recognize and promote their connection to Polkadot.
I’d like to propose that all projects funded by the Polkadot treasury include a statement on their websites/software/dapp/wallet, etc., such as “Funded by Polkadot DAO,” or a more impactful alternative. This simple addition will strengthen Polkadot’s identity and provide greater transparency to our community and potential investors.
Objectives:
Increase Visibility: Acknowledge the support from the treasury to enhance Polkadot’s reputation.
Provide Transparency: Inform the community about projects benefiting from the treasury.
Encourage Collaboration: Foster a sense of belonging and cooperation within the Polkadot community.
How: (waiting for more suggestions)
In each proposal, projects will be required to specify where and how they will use the statement “Funded by Polkadot DAO.” This will allow for future verification to ensure that the acknowledgment has been properly implemented.
Before formalizing this proposal into a WFC (Wish for Change), I would like to gather feedback from the community.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and recommendations.
Secured by Polkadot has already been used, and I think it’s nicer than funded, so I would go with that. “Funded” just makes me think about money and that Polkadot is paying it—which should not be the first thing that comes to our mind.
Secured by Polkadot would also be a viable option; however, I currently do not observe it being utilized by projects that have received funding from the treasury. Additionally, on an organic level, this initiative would enhance visibility for both Polkadot and the various projects involved.
Hey @thewhiterabbitM! @filippoweb3 had the same idea, and I’ve already received some support from other parts of our ecosystem for this.
It would be great to have a set of requirements for this part. I thought about a minimum pixel size for banners, where they have to be posted and so on. Unfortunately, there’s no way of enforcing Substrate- and Polkadot-based projects to do the same.
There has been the idea of changing Substrate’s open-source license to enforce any “Secured by Polkadot” logo.
Or we can change the approach, such as by either paying projects to add a logo. Best scenario would be, if they’re motivated to do that for free, because it adds value to their brand.
In my view, if they are seeking financial support from the treasury, it would be considerate for them to include a logo or some form of acknowledgment indicating that they have received funding from the Polkadot treasury on their website or directly within their applications. I will contact Filippo and ask him to join the discussion.
I like this idea to acknowledge what Polkadot does for projects! It makes sense and helps a lot in marketing the product.
I think we need to deeply reflect on the meaning of:
powered
funded
secured
Secured should be used for chains and things that are sending data through a Polkadot core.
Powered should be used for applications that use resources of another application. I think in the case of Polkadot, “secured” and “powered” can be used interchangeably, as Polkadot is a Layer 0 (although “secured”, IMO should have priority). For parachains, only “powered” makes sense to me.
Funded is simply used for projects that got funding from the treasury.
Example 1:
Polkadot ← Hydration ← flappywud.lol
Hydration is secured by Polkadot and powers the web3 game flappywud.lol (the game drops WUD and NFTs to players). The game is thus also powered by Asset Hub (and more stuff like graphic engine, etc. that we do not care much).
Example 2:
Polkadot ← Mythical ← Rivals
Mythical Games is secured by Polkadot, and Rivals is powered by Mythical.
Straight to the point, I totally agree, we need to work both on PR level with projects and on a possible onchian system to implement this initiative. I await other suggestions, in the meantime I’ll take notes. Thanks.
Secured for me was any kind of application on the entire Polkadot Cloud, at any point in the stack. Contract, Parachain, etc… They all inherit Polkadot’s security one way or another.
Powered were things to me outside of the Polkadot ecosystem, but use the Polkadot technology stack. So dedicated L1s (Avail, Midnight, etc…). Front-ends using the Polkadot-API, SCALE, etc…
Funded, as you said, are any projects which do not fit in these buckets but have been supported by treasury funding.
If we wanted to initiate this initiative, how could we proceed? Should we create an OpenGov proposal, or could we try to contact the various teams directly and propose it without an onchian proposal?
Create a “checking” script to find these words or slogans on their website.
Run the script and publish the output, making it clear who and where we can improve.
Call to action to the community to reach out to these teams, and suggest to them to include this branding, to satisfy making the bot go green.
See where we can get from there, and if we need to start creating incentives or punishments.
I don’t think we need to get gov involved or even money yet. If the person who does this work wants to be compensated, I think a retroactive proposal would probably be approved if the result of the work was obvious and the requested amount was reasonable.
Hey @thewhiterabbitM - Thanks for opening the discussion! I’m currently working on a WFC with some of the ecosystem to tackle this very issue.
The plan would be to help increase the visibility of Polkadot and thus, awareness of its adoption, we propose to instil a Wish For Change that makes it a requirement to display the Polkadot Logo, in some format on their own branding, campaign, product or socials if you have sought funding from the Polkadot Treasury in some format.
Great terminologies and agree with the meanings. They should be properly defined in the WfC. Another catch-all could be added (“supported by”) in case teams are not sure which one to use, so that there is no excuse.
For everything retroactive, I can imagine a second proposal / WfC can be set up with incentives, but I’d do that later and see if the general WfC already works.
I completely agree, and I think this is an excellent idea! Promoting visibility for Polkadot treasury-funded projects will certainly strengthen the ecosystem and make it more recognizable.
In fact, this kind of requirement is already enforced if you receive funds through European initiatives, at least here in Greece. For example, we have ESPA, and if you receive funds through ESPA, you must include its banner on your website to acknowledge their support. I think a similar approach would work very well for Polkadot projects, ensuring that the contributions made by the treasury are properly recognized.
Personally, I prefer the “Funded by Polkadot” label over “Secured by Polkadot” because the latter could lead to misunderstandings about security. Since no one can guarantee the overall security of a system or application, using “Secured by Polkadot” might accidentally suggest that Polkadot is responsible for the application’s security, which could potentially harm Polkadot’s reputation in some scenarios. Still, this is just my opinion.
