In order to pass through the USB-IF Compliance Program, all USB-C® to USB-C cables categories must be labelled with either a power capability of 60W or 240W by using the appropriate power icon and/or logo. The USB-IF now requires that all cables must be labeled with the 60W or 240W logo prior to compliance testing so that testing can confirm the intended display of such icons/logos. The policy now extends to all USB-C to USB-C cables. These markings must be checked before compliance testing can begin.
In addition to the power markings, in order to pass through the USB-IF Compliance Program, all cables except for High-Speed USB (USB 2.0) USB-C to USB-C cables, are required to be marked with the appropriate data rate they can support. An example, a USB 20Gbps USB-C – USB-C cable that supports 20V at 3A must be marked with the Combined Performance and Power 20Gbps/60W logo.
The logo is useful for data transfer, but for power delivery you can usually find the outputs on the adapter. For example, my 65W USB-C charging cable supports 3A at 5V/9V/15V and 3.25A at 20V. It's not very consumer friendly, sure, but at least it's simple (higher is "better").
As if 99% of cables aren’t bought at dollar stores and gas stations to charge phones for 2 weeks before being lost or damaged. And none of them bother with USB logos.
All I really care about it the durability of the phone port, and usb c looks far more inherently fragile than lightning. 1/4 of the USB Cs on my MacBook Pro have issues, and my phone gets plugged and unplugged far more often, and only has one port.
I mean... That's exactly why "unlabeled" is defaulted to USB 2 speeds and less than 60W. They're already labeled correctly for this update.
I feel the same way about durability but apparently usb-c is rated to 10,000 insertions. Idk though. The lightning port has been very solid in regular use but I can't say the same about the usb-c ports I've known.
Eventually wireless charging will be the standard so it might not matter as much for phones.
I'd be curious to see how many of those cables without logos are actually USB certified as opposed to being compatible with the spec.
petrescatraian@libranet.de to 
Thankfully, they recently introduced logo requirements for this exact reason.
Here's a table of the logos
The logo is useful for data transfer, but for power delivery you can usually find the outputs on the adapter. For example, my 65W USB-C charging cable supports 3A at 5V/9V/15V and 3.25A at 20V. It's not very consumer friendly, sure, but at least it's simple (higher is "better").
As if 99% of cables aren’t bought at dollar stores and gas stations to charge phones for 2 weeks before being lost or damaged. And none of them bother with USB logos.
All I really care about it the durability of the phone port, and usb c looks far more inherently fragile than lightning. 1/4 of the USB Cs on my MacBook Pro have issues, and my phone gets plugged and unplugged far more often, and only has one port.
I mean... That's exactly why "unlabeled" is defaulted to USB 2 speeds and less than 60W. They're already labeled correctly for this update.
I feel the same way about durability but apparently usb-c is rated to 10,000 insertions. Idk though. The lightning port has been very solid in regular use but I can't say the same about the usb-c ports I've known.
Eventually wireless charging will be the standard so it might not matter as much for phones.
I'd be curious to see how many of those cables without logos are actually USB certified as opposed to being compatible with the spec.