> Who said anybody was using the niche academic economist definition of „public good“? Except that if something is not a "public good" in the economics sense,

> Who said anybody was using the niche academic economist definition of „public good“? Except that if something is not a "public good" in the economics sense, then the burden of proof is on the claimant that there is an under-provision problem to be solved. Is this crypto scheme geared towards solving an actual problem or is a money-making scheme for its proponents? > Compare „string“ in computer science vs astrophysics. That comparison is disingenuous because the scheme about "Funding Public Goods" using economic incentives and mechanisms. We are in the realm of economics here. See also[1]: > Co-author here. I definitely use the phrase "public goods" in the economic sense: goods that are non-rival and non-excludable. Therefore, it seems like they are trying to build a binding scheme to help beneficiaries express the value they put on the provision of the public good. There is a rich literature in economics about mechanism design that should reveal the difficulties involved. Separately, it is important to keep in mind that things that are nonrival and nonexcludable can also be "public bad"s. :-) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27902669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27902669