Zero direct utility to DOT token. Don't these projects have their own marketing budget?

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.