It just doesn't make sense.

It would imply that I could pay my laborers twice as much (maybe my family is also part of that group?) and yet deserve to still take home the same profit margin
https://warpcast.com/nor/0xee34c0

The only problem is externality pricing.

Building https://negationgame.com

I suspect it meant to say revenue equal to impact, rather than profit.

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

Or rather, reward equal to impact (not accounting for expenses).

Hmm which section? I'm reading it now but gonna take a while. :) I see them correlating optimizing profit to optimizing impact, which makes sense.

yeah that makes much more sense to me too, but no they explicitly mean profit. They account for inferred expenses as part of the retrofunding