The overall initiative is great, we always love to see more codebases, projects and such be branded as “ By Polkadot”.
As to what <something> should be, I think different opinions are valuable in their own context, and I am optimistic that the diverse comments here will help us come to a good conclusion.
Regardless of that conclusion though, I think “ By Polkadot” is already a great step forward, and much better than team building in the Polkadot tech stack without any mention of it. So I hope acknowledging this helps us converge to a decision sooner rather than later.
As to my personal “opinion”, If we are talking about anything that is technologically linked to the Polkadot relay chain, be it a Parachain, a DApp on a parachain, a (meme)coin on a DApp on Parachain and so on, I would stick to a simple “Secured by Polkadot”.
If it is a purely research, non-profit, non-parachain-based project (prototyping a new blockchain type with Polkadot-SDK), then “Funded by Polkadot”.
Agree with this sentiment, and the general consensus here that there should be a few different phrases “[Secured/Powered/Funded] by Polkadot”
If on a website, I’d probably also go so far as suggesting that the phrase should be linked back to the page on PolkAssembly [to serve as a quick reminder for community members on the amount / terms of the funding]
I don’t think gov should enforce how this credit is shown on a app/website/UI. We should:
Have a list of “approved” phrases for credit, OR have a set of graphics people can use
Suggest that these should be linked to somewhere
Suggest the credit (text or image) should be placed on website-wide footer (so it’s on all pages on their website/app)
etc etc
i.e. we shouldn’t be proscriptive IMO, but rather encouraging.
A key sell for the project to include the credit is to show that “look, we are trusted, even buy polkadot governance…so much, that they even put money behind us”. I think its an easy sell.