<aside> If finite resources should be allocated to those who can utilize them most efficiently, then who should infinite resources be allocated to?
</aside>
Resources such as air (approximately infinite) and binary files (infinitely copyable) must be priced at 0 in an efficient market, as proven below.
Define $P:\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, a function mapping the quantity of a given resource to its corresponding price. [1]
$\because P(a)=a P(1)$
$\therefore P(a+b)=(a+b)P(1)=aP(1)+bP(1) =P(a)+P(b)$
$\because Q \rightarrow \infty \\ \therefore Q=Q+1$
$\cancel{P(Q)}=P(Q+1)=\cancel{P(Q)}+P(1) \\ P(1) = 0 \\ \therefore P(n) \equiv 0$
Under efficient market assumptions, any infinite resource must have a market price of 0.
Therefore, most infinite resources such as open-source code projects can only be offered as free public goods, and even when monetized, it can only be done through selling merchandise, which is far removed from their core value. This paper provides a direct monetization channel for them.
Resources like room-temperature superconductor technology and controlled nuclear fusion technology that only exist in the future cannot even be priced by the market, as there are no products to sell in the market, nor do they meet IPO requirements for public valuation.
Obviously, while the price of air is 0, anyone would tell you that its value is certainly not 0. Hold your head underwater for 5 minutes, and then tell me how much you would be willing to pay (value) for one breath of air.
For the examples listed above (air, binary files, room-temperature superconductor technology, controlled nuclear fusion technology, etc.), anyone's psychological valuation is definitely $>0$. This shows that for such non-typical assets, traditional market pricing mechanisms fail, and consensus pricing mechanisms are more reasonable.