I have previously argued that this concept is better described by "Ecosystem Goods" than "Public Goods"

I still think that's true

building /hatsprotocol | 
proudly mid-curving it since 1995

rationale here https://spengrah.mirror.xyz/MMPx9GNZ0mHXgMsTuOmBsmpBnLt31faqIayrD2R1EGs

Making Retro Funding on Optimism fun, easy & better for discoverability with psuedo-anon signalling & algo ranking on a user friendly app: pairwise.vote

Impact created by ecosystem goods that is already rewarded by revenue should not also be rewarded by retro funding. This is clear when understanding retro funding as a form of "revenue replacement".

Usually public goods projects are associated with nonprofit. 

Begs the question whether it's fair to reward projects that make revenue compared to projects that provide a completely open and free project on the network. 

Either way, we're happy with the process -- but believe the voting process could be improved.

Founder & Secretary of @kokonutnetwork & /coconuts 🌱🌴🥥

https://kokonut.network/

i'd argue that ecosystem == community, so I'd actually be fine with Community Goods as well

If they're ecosystem-agnostic, can we call them "Community Goods" ?

usually I am the one accused of esotericism so this is a refreshing response 😆

I agree. I've used the term Network Common Good but yours is less esoteric.