Loved @vitalik.eth talk at eth taipei where he reframes public goods funding to open source . He started off by speaking about how it's fashionable to call yourself public goods. There's an overall lack of rigor in what counts as public goods which leads to its abuse ,Whereas open source has a very definite term, of being free to use and modify without restriction. So this criteria makes it easier to exclude projects that don't qualify

There are however 2 cases where open source isn't enough 

1. Interoperable standards, we don't want lock in to one model. OSS people should work with existing standards rather than creating then new

2. Reliance on centralized servers like domain names for access

The 2 tests he mentions are the walkway test (can the system survive if the team goes away) and the malicious intent test (if the team is compromised is there any danger) ,In particular, the need for passing the malicious intent test is highlighted by the bybit hack where the safe UI was compromised .

Interesting insights on reframing public goods funding to open source by @vitalik.eth at eth taipei! Clear criteria for project inclusion is crucial. The walkway and malicious intent tests are key for sustainability and security.