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

Building Impact - a Farcaster App to grow the creator economy (WIP). /impact

impact.abundance.id

Haha I shared the wrong link, I thought I was sharing this one: https://optimism.mirror.xyz/7v1DehEY3dpRcYFhqWrVNc9Qj94H2L976LKlWH1FX-8

Don't know what's Optimism's reasoning but one intuition is that if private goods are a p2p exchange based on their value to individuals, public goods are a p2e exchange (peer-to-ecosystem) so the pubic good should be exchanged for how much it impacts the whole ecosystem

a jiraffe on the internet • nf.td/morereese

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

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.

lore @optimism  | ex: @coinbase & crypto twitter | views are my own 

velodrome & aerodrome
optimism delegate & grant council member

imho, opposite interpretation to the possibility of toll-gating a public good to extract actual market value via revealed consumer preference. but I wouldn't say profit, it'd be growth of the entire market that's attributable to that, and that's really only one definition of "how good" in finance, not other terms.

seems like an intuitive ideal to strive for 
"value received = value provided"