[neilv]

My wild guess on Brave is that there are multiple and conditional plans. One, disclosed plan might work for bootstrapping. The actual/longer-term plan(s) might kick in once they have sufficient money&users, or when the bootstrap runs into regulatory or civil legal trouble. (Or maybe they Uber right through regulatory trouble, if they have enough users and money by then.)

I have a complementary wild guess that someone has worked out an ethical philosophy argument in which Brave's plans made sense. It could conceivably include "this is war" (e.g., crucial importance of liberty-ish principles and the Internet, dangerous powerful aggressors, failures of legislation and enforcement authorities), "the ends justify the means", and perhaps an assumption of "we won't be evil".

(My first pick would be a world in which US and non-US legislatures are willing to genuinely and utterly smash certain dotcom practices and thinking. My second pick would be to light a fire under Mozilla, to be more aggressive and fearless, at the same time Mozilla's funding model is redone, to remove conflicts of interest (and push out anyone who would actually rather be at a dotcom). But I'm kinda giving Brave some space, for the moment, as one of the possible third alternatives, since maybe they can do good things Mozilla can't/won't, or maybe their role is to provide additional shakeup pressure on Mozilla.)