My previous post about how assurance contracts improve the situation of contributors and investors in public goods sparked some interesting discussion. Specifically, people asked: "What if you think a thing can get funded without you, and you can get to profit the most if you position yourself right?

To illustrate this thought, consider a simple assurance contract. We do not consider either barebones contributions nor dominant assurance contracts, as they are not directly relevant to the calculations here.

Your goal when considering whether to contribute, should always be moving from bottom right to top left. Assurance contracts simplify your considerations since you no longer have to worry about top-right.

"Wait, im_uname! Sometimes if I think others will cover it just fine, maybe I can get away with bottom-left!"

This is where you are wrong. You are especially wrong in cryptocurrency, a very young field where every imaginable thing on every facet needs people to work on.

Consider there are two projects, A and B. Someone else contributed to A to make it happen (arrow 1), you did not, and think you can get away with it: Congratulations, you are now in bottom-middle, and you seem better off! But wait...

You can profit even more by also contributing to project B where you can make a difference (arrow 2).

There will always be a Project B lying just ahead, where you can make a difference.

One does not simply run out of things to contribute to and make a profit.