[mattalex]

I still don't really get how brave is supposed to work:

You watch significantly fewer ads than before, these ads are then supplied to whoever you yourself engage with. That seems like watching these fewer ads directly on the site, just with a few hoops in between.

The difference is that now you watch fewer ads in total, and you have the Brave-browser as an inbetween, which also somehow has to survive. This means that you get potentially even less money, since less ads are watched and the ones that are watched are more diluted (even if brave currently doesn't take a cut at the moment: At some point they have to pay their developers, too).

Also, why do they pay out in BAT? (other than the fact that they cooperate with "uphold" a crypto-exchange and that they also really really want to jump on the crypto-bandwagon)

Somehow there has to be money going into the system that supports its own existance. If brave had something like a subsciption service or other way to get additional funds into the Network, then it might be more understandable, but even then: Why should I support someone by using BATs instead of paypaling/patreoning/whatever-elseing him the money directly?

[jonathansampson]

I recently did a 5 minute video on the history of digital advertising, with an introduction to Brave's model: https://youtu.be/LsrrT502luI.

Per https://brave.com/rewards and https://creators.brave.com, users opt-in to Brave Rewards and begin participating with privacy-preserving Ads. Each ad nets you, the user, 70% of the associated revenue.

Rewards come in the form of BAT, which moves more easily and comes with considerably less friction. The blockchain enables users to effortlessly and anonymously participate. This also means that everybody with attention (and not necessarily disposable income) can support the content they love online.

As for paying out in BAT, creators can choose to have BAT auto-converted into Bitcoin, US Dollars, etc. Users can also have their rewards converted into another type of asset or currency via Uphold too. BAT is simply a utility token, whose utility is currently best demonstrated within the Brave ecosystem.

To your last point, the "money going in" comes from advertisers. They pay in fiat currencies, or via BAT. If they pay us in dollars, we purchase BAT as needed from the market. Users can also self-fund their wallet, if they have disposable income.

[mattalex]

I understand that money goes in through the advertisers: But how is that money sufficient to maintain the current websites?

You watch fewer ads than before, which means (if the ads pay the same) that each website gets on average (i.e. if the split is the same as before) less money. As you describe it, only 70% of the ad-revenue actually reaches the user, meaning even if you watch the same amount of ads, websites get 30% less money, and that ignores that many people just opt-out of ads. (BTW do you know where that 30% go to?)

> The blockchain enables users to effortlessly and anonymously participate.

That actually makes sense. But if you want to get money out of BAT, don't you have to pay a transaction fee? And if you don't, then how does Uphold make any money to pay their developers?

For me it seems that there's money vanishing at every point and very little or nothing to replace it.

Also, wouldn't brave have a quasi-monopoly on ads in this configuration? Even if brave is an honorable company (and I have no reason to doubt that), it makes me uneasy to know that we are breeding another potential "too-big-to-fail" giant like Facebook/Amazon/Google.

Edit:

Rereading your comment again and noticing the "users can distributed bought BAT directly" part: Then the monetization system makes a little more sense. Do you have stats on how much people are paying in? Is the ultimate goal to get rid of ads entirely or at least shift over to a "pay for what you use" model? In that case I can understand that. (though the monopoly on website monetization part still makes me kind of uneasy)

[jonathansampson]

I think you're conflating the user with the publisher here; the user received 0% of the ad revenue in the past. With Brave, the user receives 70% of the ad revenue (the other 30% goes to Brave, which builds and maintains this apparatus).

You're correct that publishers lose revenue when ads are blocked on their sites, but not blocking ads means users are at an increased risk of being abused by malicious third-party actors. This is one of the main issues with ad and content blockers: they keep users safer, but they take revenue from content creators.

Brave is working on a model that reduces fraud, increases rewards for content creators, and rewards users for their attention. This won't be built overnight, let alone over a few short years. That said, we are making tremendous progress, now settling over 8-figures each month for verified content creators.

As Brave matures and develops, more options will become available for users and content creators to earn more.

As for transaction fees when converting BAT, you are correct. There are often transaction fees involved. But those often depend on how much you're moving around, if you're buying or selling, etc. Uphold and Gemini (our other partner in this space) may also differ between each other.

You're right about heavily centralization around Brave too. This is why we're working on THEMIS (https://brave.com/themis/), a protocol for decentralizing the Brave Ads ecosystem. We recently wrapped-up an effort in that space and blogged about progress: https://brave.com/themis-rfcc-wrap-up/.

We don't have stats to share on how many Brave users are self-funding their wallets vs earning with Rewards. That said, the latter category is naturally going to be much, much larger. It is also not an either-or thing either; many people opt-in to Brave Ads and also buy BAT to supplement their attention-based earnings.

I don't think the goal is to get rid of ads entirely, but rather to yield power to the user. Not everybody has disposable income, and therefore many people would prefer to opt-in to privacy-respecting ads, earn rewards for their attention, and support the Web by those means. For those who wish to self-fund, that is possible. They don't need to opt-in to Brave Ads either.

[mdale]

Even if a site made significant effort to have "non-malicious ads" I don't think brave would not block them with and put in their own.

I.e Brave is bootstrapping on manipulation of the intent of the publisher.

A cleaner aproch may be to approach publishers offer them a "better way" and decuple it from the browser marketing privacy / reduced ad load.

Likewise standards bodies, NGOs and Gov agencies need to protect users in the web and app ecosystems making it a more level in respecting user privacy / reduced harm. To control publisher / advertising / user relationship in a fair way.

But we live in a time of fast pace asymmetrical software mediated warfair and a few eggs are going to be cracked along the way in to trying to build something better.

[jonathansampson]

Brave does not touch first-party ads; you can do all of the first-party advertising you like. Unfortunately, whether the third-party ads are malicious or not is not up to the publisher. The publisher is simply asked to add a bit of JavaScript to their page, and that's it.

Brave doesn't inject ads onto webpages; so there is no scenario where you (as a publisher) would have our ads displayed on your page (unless you, yourself displayed them).

Please see this 5-minute overview of the problems facing digital ads, and Brave's proposed model: https://youtu.be/LsrrT502luI

[freediver]

Nice video, but it almost completely misses the point:

Even if all ads on all websites were made in a privacy-respecting way, people would still use adblockers.

This is because people simply hate ads in their browser. It is because they make browsing experience miserable. They add bloat. They distract from the content. They add cognitive overhead. They slow down browsing. They are literally unwanted guests in our browsers.

So Brave’s model replaces one set of ads with another, basically achieving nothing to mitigate the problem itself - very existance of ads in the first place. What makes Brave’s ad model worse is that it offers people a monetary incentive for doing an activity (watch ads) that we know they are trying to avoid (by using a browser with an ad-blocker). So the very premise of this setup seems to be that people hate ads just because they are not privacy-respecting. But reality is that people normally simply do not want to be exposed to ads.

(btw the only ad based business model that would align all incentives is one in which users would be paying to see the ads)

[rainonmoon]

This step in the chain of progress may require people to adapt to the idea of making less money in exchange for a healthier web.

[aabbcc1241]

if user buy BAT directly than distribute to the content creator, the story sounds similar to likecoin

[ipaddr]

I started using it. Found it fast. I get many 4 ads a day. They don't appear on the website they appear near the button to the side. Really small ad, just text. It is so out of the way.

The model for profit is around the bat coins gaining popularity. The payouts are extremely low for everyone.

[rglullis]

> The model for profit is around the bat coins gaining popularity

Incorrect. Their revenue is in USD, and their payout is calculated using the revenue in USD. The price of the token does not affect them in any way.

Their model from profit is unbelievably simple. They are an ad network that uses the browser as a distribution vehicle. More people using the browser, more advertisers will be buying ad space, more revenue for them.

They do have a published roadmap about offering more services in the crypto-space (built-in web3 wallet with direct connection with crypto exchanges, use of NFTs to access features and services on different websites, etc) which are very interesting and it might even become a bigger play than the existing ad network. At the end of the day however, they can have a solid and sustainable business just with the ad distribution network.

[gonehome]

I think the idea is this:

- Most people won't paypal/patreon/send money directly

- The current system uses ads as a shorthand for attention. If you're able to get attention you get more ad traction and more money.

- Ads suck and are a corrupting influence on everything, if there was a way to directly award attention without ads that would be better.

- Brave replaces ads by tracking attention directly and attempting to reward it directly with BATs. These is done instead of cash because (I'm not really sure why) - I suspect because it's easier to manage and easier to split into tiny amounts.

- Flattr from the late 2000s (2007?) was similar, but with cash (Flattr = Flat Rate) the idea being you'd put in $XX/month and it'd distribute it depending on what pages you viewed. It was created by some of the Pirate Bay founders iirc. It never got much traction.

The issues I have with these services:

- Ads are bad, but the attention economy is the underlying problem. Removing ads is good, but still incentivizing attention for $$ isn't great.

- In the case of 'privacy' Brave has now inserted themselves as the tracker of all attention, this is very high risk and not a lot better than the ad companies. Sure you don't see ads but a lot of the bad slot machine incentives around content remain.

- I don't want to necessarily pay everyone based on what I view, what if what captures my attention is crap? What if I'm reading something for context, but don't support it?

---

I get what they're trying to do, reward people without ads and without making users pay - but I'd rather the ad model just die and if some businesses can't survive without it we probably don't need them. I recognize this isn't super realistic because companies compete on a global stage.

A business truly operating in the interest of users would make a browser that had ad blocking built in without tracking - and worked on subverting ads full time (what users actually want). This includes real privacy by not being a new middle man tracking attention. Apple is the closest to doing stuff like this with their new onion router VPN, making it easy to block tracking from apps in the store, etc.

Brave pretends its interest is privacy and browser users, but it feels like a rationalization to me. Brave's core business is attention tracking and taking a cut of that, if not now - when they have more power. Its user's attention is what they monetize - those incentives don't lead some place good.

[mthoms]

You seem to have missed a critical point: The “attention tracking” Brave does stays completely on device.

The browser is sent a list of ads, and the browser decides which ads to serve based on its metrics. Brave doesn’t see this data and the user can choose to participate or not.

There are no easy answers, but this is an interesting model and a reasonable compromise for many.

[rglullis]

> That seems like watching these fewer ads directly on the site,

The ads from Brave are completely separate from the website. They are presented as an OS notification pop-up.

> Somehow there has to be money going into the system that supports its own existance.

Yes, of course. Their revenue coming from the advertisers that get to place ads on their notifications. They only pay to the users a share of this revenue. If for some reason they stop getting advertisers, they will stop paying the users. Simple as that.

> This means that you get potentially even less money.

This is making the very bad assumption that they have a fixed revenue. As their user base grows, more advertisers will be interested in placing ads on their network and their revenue will increase.

> Also, why do they pay out in BAT?

Primarily, because it simplifies the logistics and allows them to escape the regulatory hurdles of having to become licensed money transmitters, and lets them outsource all of that crap to the crypto exchanges. A second-order but also important effect is that it attract users who want to speculate on the token.

> Why should I support someone by using BATs instead of paypaling/patreoning/whatever-elseing him the money directly?

Whynotboth.jpg?

Patreon is not bad, but they are not in a business that can fight surveillance capitalism. Patreon does not have a way to block Facebook from tracking my browsing. Brave does. Patreon does not block the Youtube ads from the people that you want to support. Brave does.