Yes correct - it’s like a grant that has a particular result as the criteria for receiving the retroactive grant funding. In my view, the actual result should be unambiguous to provide assurance to impact investors that fund the public good project that if they meet the criteria for success they will obtain the retroactive grant - although Vitalik does point out the difficulty of calculating the public good benefit in advance (ie the size of the grant). But it’s possible for the public benefit to be flexibly calculated according to a formula determined in advance eg $50k per QALY added to patients in the treatment arm of a clinical trial for an off patent/public good health intervention. Retroactive public goods funding is essentially a “pay for success” or outcome-based financing model, which are being explored by some govt bodies/payers - it is not a philanthropic model where the payers/funders take on all the risk of project failure. But without a payer backing the Results Oracle or SIB, there is no “exit” for the impact investors so the model doesn’t work. And the backers of the initial Results Oracle or SIB are likely to be philanthropic or UHNWIs that are happy to pay for the public good in the event the result is achieved. Later, this would be backed by govt payers on the basis of taxpayer benefit.