This is correct. If we make a pot-size raise every time villain c-bets, they never 3-bet the flop, and they call exactly 50% of the time then we are both 0EV before the rake is taken. Now let's say we switch to making a 3/4 pot-size raise each time they c-bet and they never adjust now we have started making a profit because they overfold. As for how much of a bet we should make and with what holdings vs. Villains range we are getting into the reason that solvers have become a thing for serious players. For a general guideline without running stuff through solvers I would worry less about using this stat to exploit and worry more about what can be done to either increase or likely fold equity beyond what is required (prefer to be in position, target flops where Villain is more likely to have air or a capped range than we are) or improve the equity of our holding (prefer semi-bluffs to pure bluffs).

I do get that this didn't answer your question, but giving a hard number is pretty difficult for at least a couple reasons:

1) This is a particular postflop scenario so will take probably thousands of hands to get a reasonably accurate value.

2) The value will have significantly different implications for different players. An 18/11 Nit who is folding 50% of their c-bets to a raise is going to be folding the best hand too often. The 38/30 LAGtard who folds 50% of the time is continuing with marginal holdings too much of the time. They both fold 50% of their c-bets but what we want to be doing is different with each. The nit we would want to be bluffing medium flops because they missed his broadway cards and give him reason to believe his medium and low pocket pairs are no good. The LAGtard we want to start betting a wider range of hands for value since he is going to call with more crap. Same stat but entirely different meanings.