Does anyone know why Optimism says that the right amount to reward public goods is with profit equal to impact? I'm trying to ground that idea 

Is there anyone from Optimism here on farcaster?

https://abundances.substack.com/p/how-crypto-solves-the-problem-of-public-goods-8ae7125459a8

The only problem is externality pricing.

Building https://negationgame.com

I don't have much Optimism context, but my initial impression is it reminds me of the Satoshi Nakamoto quote about the price of a commodity gravitating toward its production costs.

a jiraffe on the internet • nf.td/morereese

but if that's the case then you should distribute revenue, not profit, right?

lol it makes more sense now. Just had a read and to answer your question, I understand Optimism Collective's conception of profit in this context to be the "take home rate" of the individual/project that received retroactive funding. Rewarding public goods creators in profit proportionate to impact seems more fitting

Haha I now understand why everyone is confused. I shared the wrong link lol 

https://optimism.mirror.xyz/7v1DehEY3dpRcYFhqWrVNc9Qj94H2L976LKlWH1FX-8

Depends on the accounting standards you use, but ya I'd agree with that directionally. I haven't given much thought to profit vs revenue realization in a public goods context tbh. I'll have to take a closer look at the article you shared.