41–50 of 229 posts
So, let me get this straight. If I set up an old computer in the corner and script it to just meander around the web 24/7 using Brave, I can rack up a ton of useless BAT tokens/currency/whatever?
Currently, there is no way to actually make money by using Brave, it's essentially Chrome with some adblocker pre-installed.
I stopped using Brave because of this exchange: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1118689481777766400 >Our value add is free speech. A free speech browser. With a free speech app store. With free speech money. (Bitcoin.) We don’t care about saving advertising. We care about saving free expression. Fundamental difference. Fundamental USP. Edit: Not talking about anyone's politics here, I'm talking about Brave's f…
"Today, there’s no way for users who receive BAT for viewing ads to swap their digital currency for dollars, but Eich says Brave will partner with cryptocurrency exchanges to make that possible." So people can pay to buy tokens but can't sell them, seems legit.
Unfortunately, MLMs are legal, and since a service is being done for pay (ads count as a 'service') then this is probably legit. But I thought the point of Brave was to pay content authors. Wouldn't a simpler and more consistent solution be to make it so that if a viewer received a payment for viewing ads (man that is hard to type) that the money is held in escrow until they pay it out to a site the user has visited?…
"Today, there’s no way for users who receive BAT for viewing ads to swap their digital currency for dollars, but Eich says Brave will partner with cryptocurrency exchanges to make that possible." So people can pay to buy tokens but can't sell them, seems legit.
You can buy and sell them on exchanges like Coinbase. It'd probably be a bad idea for Brave to get into the cryptocurrency exchange business - it's a tricky business, and it's not their core competency.
Anyone who's been involved in the current ad-tech industry knows it's a total tire fire of fraud, technical incompetence and deep hostility to end-users.
Brave's model is very interesting and also a threat to the current ad-tech cesspool, so there should be no surprise to see attempts to misinform people about the model.
Brave doesn't replace ads with other ads.
Brave is a browser first, with an economic layer that will support all sorts of opt-in economic activity in a privacy-respecting way.
The tokens have a market price of more than zero.
Advertisers already include brands like Vimeo and Vice, and many within the ad industry appreciate the model Brave is attempting.
Using on-device machine learning to deliver relevant ads, while at the same time protecting privacy by not sending that data over the wire is a rather brilliant idea.
It certainly remains to be seen what advertisers are convinced to trial this approach, but predictions based on a very wonky understanding of the Brave model aren't particularly interesting.
Brave is just an intermediary that replaces ads with other ads. It's an adnetwork delivered as a browser that creates ad inventory on top of the page instead of within it. That being said, the tokens are basically worthless. This is not what the digital advertising industry wants and Brave is not going to get any decent advertisers with this. They'll end up with the same shady affiliate/performance marketers running…
They've literally selected for a userbase of people who dislike advertising enough to go out of their way to find and use a largely unknown browser. I doubt that the people who downloaded it to avoid advertising will sign up for this without paying them a lot.
Most people are sold on Brave due to privacy / speed / battery life. Baking a transactional layer into the browser allows things like rewards for ad participation, but I think microtransactions to pay for gated content will be the more interesting aspect over the longer term. I only use and recommend Brave now, but have no intention of turning on ads.
...for them to siphon money from dumb investors cuz bl0ckcha1n!%$@$.
Downvote me all you want, it won't make it not true.
Would anyone like to argue that the present web financial model is fine? Or would anyone like to point to someone else who has an alternative that would be workable and is anywhere near usable?
And let met add one more point. Any workable alternative is not going to be perfect, so the fact one is not is not, at least alone, a reason to not use it.
But again, let me ask all the brave critiques, what is your alternative? And by that I mean that can be used by your average user, not something only a techy can make work.