Many times we can forget what this is all about. Web3 is the next step of the Internet which is the decentralized node based Internet. And here is where the different blockchains enter the story to make this real. As you are aware, if we don’t take our responsibility to spread knowledge to the mainstream, the decentralized node Internet won't work and we might miss the biggest social and business opportunity in history. To make a long story short, Polkadot is not just a chain and its token. That will be a misleading approach because it will mean that, for instance, any bank can launch a token and centralize it, and blow away the main features of blockchain (when decentralized) such as security, data transparency, privacy, DePIN, etc.
For that reason Polkadot is an ecosystem. It's also not really about marketing budgets, as all projects have their marketing budgets and plans. It is more about alignment and mass adoption. The way I believe the inclusion of Energy Web benefits Polkadot is by highlighting enterprise use cases, products, and solutions that are already available today in the Polkadot ecosystem. We can also include partners from the Energy Web ecosystem, like Vodafone and PayPal, who can join events (such as X spaces) to share their success stories and explain why Energy Web and Polkadot contribute to their business success and why they chose to build or launch their business on Polkadot. We can leverage Energy Web’s narrative and a success story for BDs to support Polkadot marketing narrative around enterprise adoption.
a year ago
I believe that Polkadot parachains + projects, if supported by OpenGov, and especially if they have no direct usage of DOT beyond (in the future) CoreTime, should actively be held to some BASIC STANDARD in promoting Polkadot when receiving marketing bounty or OpenGov support. This could be as simple as requiring "secured by Polkadot" is actively mentioned in promotional materials. In contrast, simply supporting marketing (e.g. printing up T-shirts that don't even mention Polkadot) makes little sense. The devil is in the details.
For our work on #324, we amplified many messages on @polkadot's main Twitter channel, which naturally promoted both Polkadot and the parachain + project. We think this is healthy. Some parachains actively cross-promote Polkadot, and others do not.
In contrast, proposals like this do not have effective cross-promotion of Polkadot. These details matter.
Unlike Polkadot defi (c.f Hydration, Bifrost, Stellaswap) and smart contract functionality (Moonbeam, Astar) which are "too big to ignore" and possess significant channel conflict (c.f Plaza and OpenGov Ref 885), there is no channel conflict with Energywebx (and most all industry verticals), Mythical (and the entire games sector). So long as the BASIC STANDARD is met and enforced by curators, we should support marketing Polkadot parachains and projects.
Is there a BASIC STANDARD for cross-promotion? Are these enforced by Polkadot marketing curators effectively? These are the core questions.
We do not believe "Inclusion of { XYZ } in Marketing Narratives" without addressing these core questions makes much sense. If these core questions are addressed well, there should be no doubt EnergyWebX should be included in marketing narratives.
Zero direct utility to DOT token. Don't these projects have their own marketing budget?
@HiroProtagonist
Many times we can forget what this is all about. Web3 is the next step of the Internet which is the decentralized node based Internet. And here is where the different blockchains enter the story to make this real. As you are aware, if we don’t take our responsibility to spread knowledge to the mainstream, the decentralized node Internet won't work and we might miss the biggest social and business opportunity in history. To make a long story short, Polkadot is not just a chain and its token. That will be a misleading approach because it will mean that, for instance, any bank can launch a token and centralize it, and blow away the main features of blockchain (when decentralized) such as security, data transparency, privacy, DePIN, etc.
For that reason Polkadot is an ecosystem. It's also not really about marketing budgets, as all projects have their marketing budgets and plans. It is more about alignment and mass adoption. The way I believe the inclusion of Energy Web benefits Polkadot is by highlighting enterprise use cases, products, and solutions that are already available today in the Polkadot ecosystem. We can also include partners from the Energy Web ecosystem, like Vodafone and PayPal, who can join events (such as X spaces) to share their success stories and explain why Energy Web and Polkadot contribute to their business success and why they chose to build or launch their business on Polkadot. We can leverage Energy Web’s narrative and a success story for BDs to support Polkadot marketing narrative around enterprise adoption.
I believe that Polkadot parachains + projects, if supported by OpenGov, and especially if they have no direct usage of DOT beyond (in the future) CoreTime, should actively be held to some BASIC STANDARD in promoting Polkadot when receiving marketing bounty or OpenGov support. This could be as simple as requiring "secured by Polkadot" is actively mentioned in promotional materials. In contrast, simply supporting marketing (e.g. printing up T-shirts that don't even mention Polkadot) makes little sense. The devil is in the details.
For our work on #324, we amplified many messages on @polkadot's main Twitter channel, which naturally promoted both Polkadot and the parachain + project. We think this is healthy. Some parachains actively cross-promote Polkadot, and others do not.
In contrast, proposals like this do not have effective cross-promotion of Polkadot. These details matter.
Unlike Polkadot defi (c.f Hydration, Bifrost, Stellaswap) and smart contract functionality (Moonbeam, Astar) which are "too big to ignore" and possess significant channel conflict (c.f Plaza and OpenGov Ref 885), there is no channel conflict with Energywebx (and most all industry verticals), Mythical (and the entire games sector). So long as the BASIC STANDARD is met and enforced by curators, we should support marketing Polkadot parachains and projects.
Is there a BASIC STANDARD for cross-promotion? Are these enforced by Polkadot marketing curators effectively? These are the core questions.
We do not believe "Inclusion of { XYZ } in Marketing Narratives" without addressing these core questions makes much sense. If these core questions are addressed well, there should be no doubt EnergyWebX should be included in marketing narratives.