I got that from your first post. As with every game context a win-win is only possible in non-zero sum with a relatively balanced benefit. It's clear that you c

I got that from your first post. As with every game context a win-win is only possible in non-zero sum with a relatively balanced benefit. It's clear that you can see the value you get and maybe even quantify it. However you can't quantify the other side, nor the degree to which its win will affect your win on a relatively short term (a few years tops). Two things come to mind The less relevant one, is that as a coder, once there's a good enough model (good enough = benefit/cost) your "win" will get to 0. And your contribution to what will make that win 0 is going to be non-0, but you're not going to get anything. The more relevant one, longer term, is that you may end up being predictable (a good model of yourself) that will be able to extract value out of you personally forever, again without anything for you to gain. Both may be argued against, or that they are unavoidable, regardless. But in either case, your "price point" has been arbitrarily chosen, at least from your perspective. I.e. it's not an informed choice on your end. A bit like the Monty Hall problem, you chose a door with little information. The act of sticking to the door you chose is why you're naive.