[RandomSeeded]

What I don't understand is how Brave expects to gain a userbase. It's a Chromium fork with an ad-blocking/replacing scheme. If a user wanted to install an adblocker, why wouldn't they simply install an adblocker which removes all ads instead of an entirely separate browser which still has ads that some third party has deemed acceptable? It's not like the Brave scheme has any moral high ground here to appeal to; it's not a unique scheme and when others have tried it it generally wasn't received well[0].

I simply can't come up with a way in which Brave wins market share.

[0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/why-comcasts-java...

[lackbeard]

Aren't they paying users a cut of the ad revenue?

[reustle]

Do you think advertisers are going to be that interested in paying the people looking at their ads? I just don't see how that will work in the long run.

[lackbeard]

From what I understand, advertisers aren't paying the users of Brave. Brave is paying the users.

Advertisers pay Brave (just as they would pay any other ad network, I guess?) Brave then slices that money up giving a % to the content publisher, a % to the user, and keeping a % for themselves.

[reustle]

Yeah, but if advertisers pay Brave knowing Brave pays viewers, then the advertisers know they are paying users at the end of the day.

[makomk]

Yeah. Traditionally, all the software that's tried this kind of ad replacement in the past has relied on tricking users into installing it by bundling it with existing software.