5 ms·

I have been hoping for a long time that browsers could use cryptocurrency to monetize publishers through methods other than advertising. Was very glad to see B

by Taek 9y ago

I have been hoping for a long time that browsers could use cryptocurrency to monetize publishers through methods other than advertising. Was very glad to see Brave pairing a browser with cryptocurrency (though I don't know how they will handle the scalability issues), and then very disappointed to see that it's not actually replacing ads, but instead encouraging users to watch them.

lwansbrough 9y ago
Brave already supports this.
hudon 9y ago
Why do you need a cryptocurrency to make the model work? If people wanted to do this, couldn't Chrome build a "Google Token" that does the same thing?
- GreaterFool 9y ago
  They could and it would probably not get enough traction. "Just another walled garden and more power for Google to squash whoever they like or don't like, sigh". Hard to get people excited about that. I suppose the idea here is that crypto-based tokens are more open: I'd need to research how exactly it is handled on Ethereum chain but I imagine Brave won't solely be in control over what happens to BAT.
- Taek 9y ago
  Interoperability I think is the biggest hurdle. There's nothing particularly special about blockchains here except that it's really easy to move between currencies once you've got accounts on the right exchanges. Without cryptocurrency, you'd need some way for a user to pay all websites they visit. Ads can go on any browser and be served from any company. Ad networks don't need to interoperate. But if a user is paying publishers, it's a huge hurdle to have to pay a new publisher payment processor every time you visit a new site. Sure, 70% might accept Google payments, but what about the rest of them? And what about the users who are not on Google's payment platform? Not that cryptocurrency solves all these problems. It's still a hard thing to do. But I think it at least lowers the barrier.
  - hudon 9y ago
    > it's really easy to move between currencies once you've got accounts on the right exchanges. wait so the users are going to need more than one kind of token? And they're going to need to open accounts on an exchange? > Without cryptocurrency, you'd need some way for a user to pay all websites they visit. Ads can go on any browser and be served from any company. Ad networks don't need to interoperate. But if a user is paying publishers, it's a huge hurdle to have to pay a new publisher payment processor every time you visit a new site. Sure, 70% might accept Google payments, but what about the rest of them? And what about the users who are not on Google's payment platform? Hold on, BAT is 1 kind of token. All the ad publishers need to integrate with the BAT. How is this different than having all ad publishers integrating with Google Token? If there is a competing token, let's call it CAT, how is that different than the AppleToken competing with the Google Token, from the user's perspective?
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      >How is this different than having all ad publishers integrating with Google Token? Presumably you wouldn't want to be locked into a proprietary platform that can raise fees once it has an effective monopoly.
      - hudon 9y ago
        How is that different than being locked into the BAT? Brave decides how much BAT will get you an ad spot right?
        Jabanga 9y ago
        A blockchain platform can be designed to not give the developer direct control over things like pricing, or anything at all. I don't know if that is what Brave is planning with its ad platform mind you, but it's certainly possible, and would be a differentiator only possible by building on top of a distributed ledger. A good example would be the blockchain itself, where every cost users incur, like transaction fees, is determined by end-user action (e.g. the miners and users), rather than through collusion by some set of owners.
richdougherty 9y ago
To build on what you're saying, I'd also like to pay publishers for content instead of viewing advertising. However, advertising has two useful features. 1. It provides a default way of paying publishers without any action by the consumer (i.e. the see an ad if they don't set up a payment system) 2. It establish a price for viewing the content, (i.e. the price that an advertiser would pay to show you an ad) For reason 1, I can see how it is necessary to have an advertising option as a default to get the ecosystem rolling. However I really, really hope that users would get the option of paying publishers directly instead of seeing ads. This is where reason 2 comes into play, it provides a market price for us to pay for the content we consume - just pay what an advertiser would pay.

by Taek 9y ago

lwansbrough 9y ago

Brave already supports this.

hudon 9y ago

Why do you need a cryptocurrency to make the model work? If people wanted to do this, couldn't Chrome build a "Google Token" that does the same thing?

GreaterFool 9y ago
They could and it would probably not get enough traction. "Just another walled garden and more power for Google to squash whoever they like or don't like, sigh". Hard to get people excited about that. I suppose the idea here is that crypto-based tokens are more open: I'd need to research how exactly it is handled on Ethereum chain but I imagine Brave won't solely be in control over what happens to BAT.
Taek 9y ago
Interoperability I think is the biggest hurdle. There's nothing particularly special about blockchains here except that it's really easy to move between currencies once you've got accounts on the right exchanges. Without cryptocurrency, you'd need some way for a user to pay all websites they visit. Ads can go on any browser and be served from any company. Ad networks don't need to interoperate. But if a user is paying publishers, it's a huge hurdle to have to pay a new publisher payment processor every time you visit a new site. Sure, 70% might accept Google payments, but what about the rest of them? And what about the users who are not on Google's payment platform? Not that cryptocurrency solves all these problems. It's still a hard thing to do. But I think it at least lowers the barrier.
- hudon 9y ago
  > it's really easy to move between currencies once you've got accounts on the right exchanges. wait so the users are going to need more than one kind of token? And they're going to need to open accounts on an exchange? > Without cryptocurrency, you'd need some way for a user to pay all websites they visit. Ads can go on any browser and be served from any company. Ad networks don't need to interoperate. But if a user is paying publishers, it's a huge hurdle to have to pay a new publisher payment processor every time you visit a new site. Sure, 70% might accept Google payments, but what about the rest of them? And what about the users who are not on Google's payment platform? Hold on, BAT is 1 kind of token. All the ad publishers need to integrate with the BAT. How is this different than having all ad publishers integrating with Google Token? If there is a competing token, let's call it CAT, how is that different than the AppleToken competing with the Google Token, from the user's perspective?
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >How is this different than having all ad publishers integrating with Google Token? Presumably you wouldn't want to be locked into a proprietary platform that can raise fees once it has an effective monopoly.
    - hudon 9y ago
      How is that different than being locked into the BAT? Brave decides how much BAT will get you an ad spot right?
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        A blockchain platform can be designed to not give the developer direct control over things like pricing, or anything at all. I don't know if that is what Brave is planning with its ad platform mind you, but it's certainly possible, and would be a differentiator only possible by building on top of a distributed ledger. A good example would be the blockchain itself, where every cost users incur, like transaction fees, is determined by end-user action (e.g. the miners and users), rather than through collusion by some set of owners.

richdougherty 9y ago

To build on what you're saying, I'd also like to pay publishers for content instead of viewing advertising. However, advertising has two useful features. 1. It provides a default way of paying publishers without any action by the consumer (i.e. the see an ad if they don't set up a payment system) 2. It establish a price for viewing the content, (i.e. the price that an advertiser would pay to show you an ad) For reason 1, I can see how it is necessary to have an advertising option as a default to get the ecosystem rolling. However I really, really hope that users would get the option of paying publishers directly instead of seeing ads. This is where reason 2 comes into play, it provides a market price for us to pay for the content we consume - just pay what an advertiser would pay.