5 ms·

It's thrown into an account that the creator can retrieve at anytime. A hole incorrectly insinuates it's never retrievable. This is a good way to get away fro

by ProAm 9y ago

It's thrown into an account that the creator can retrieve at anytime. A hole incorrectly insinuates it's never retrievable. This is a good way to get away from Googles monetization handcuffs.

joshuamorton 9y ago
See my edit, if you didn't already, but there exist services that already do that. The asymmetry created by this kind of "pay me without my permission" means that someone providing a service now has to do a lot of extra work if they want to get paid, whereas a user who wants to pay someone doesn't. That's not a good system if your goal is really to get money to creators.
- ProAm 9y ago
  I still feel the benefits outweigh the risks of being at the whim of Google's inscrutable changes.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Are you a youtube creator (or someone in a similar space, twitch streamer, freelance journalist, etc.)
    - ProAm 9y ago
      I am but I don't monetize my channel, but know several people that do and have had videos go from monetizable to non-monetizable for what seems to be chimerical reasons. And the autonomous review process to address the situation seems laughable but this is on-par for Googles customer service department/process.
    - cisanti 9y ago
      I am, and if Brave can play its card right, they can make a big blow to Google. They just need to get creators on board and right now 90% of creators are pissed at Google/YouTube, so the timing is perfect.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  > someone providing a service now has to do a lot of extra work if they want to get paid, whereas a user who wants to pay someone doesn't Exactly. This system makes things easier on users at the expense of making it harder on creators. I think that's kinda the point though. If your funding method relies on consumers essentially donating their money to you, it's extremely important to make that experience as seamless for them as possible. Patreon is great, but it does require users to go out of their way and make a conscious decision to fund _you_ specifically. That's a lot of extra effort that person has to go through just to give their money away to a random site they happened to visit for a couple hours that month. With this system however the user just signs up for a single service _once_ and subscribes, and that's the full extent their involvement. The trade-off is that the content creator is now the one who has to go through the extra effort of setting up an account on this service, but unlike content consumers, the creator actually has an incentive to go through that process (free money) which makes it worthwhile for them.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >Exactly. This system makes things easier on users at the expense of making it harder on creators. I think that's kinda the point though. And my point is that such a system is unsustainable, due to asymmetry of work. Lets start with a few things that we can know are true: 1. In any system of patrons and artists, an artist will have more patrons than a patron has artists, or the system is unsustainable. 2. I could create a competitor to Brave, "Fearful", tomorrow. So could anyone else. As a creator, its possible that every single patron of mine will pay me through a different service, I then need to register myself in all of them, and either manually, or via a middleman, convert the disparate currencies to my preferred one. But, because there are so many different payment methods, its likely that the long tail isn't worth my time to receive payment from. Systems that accept payment on behalf of someone else and require work on the part of that party to receive the payment create this loss. On the other hand, even if every creator has their own payment platform, there's no loss. Patrons simply don't pay the long tail of the creators that they use, and instead only make payments to the ones they appreciate the most. iow, asymmetry means that creator-focused services are the only ones that can be successful except for very niche groups. So, if your goal is to support blockchain tech, Brave is great. If on the other hand, your goal is to get paid by patrons, its not.
- tekromancr 9y ago
  But the status quo of "Put tons of work producing content and hope that youtube doesn't demonetize, because then my patreon links get deleted." is also pretty fucked. I am just glad somebody is trying to fix content monetization online without taking 30% for, what, handling payments?
  - virgilp 9y ago
    Well, in all honesty, youtube does a lot more than "handle payments" - it actually serves those videos, it finds advertisers and collects money, matches content with ads. You can argue how well it does the job (especially at the last bullet point) but it should be obvious that it does do in fact more than just "collect money".
    - tekromancr 9y ago
      I was speaking more of platforms like patreon.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
segmondy 9y ago
What if the creator doesn't retrieve it? How long is it held? Will it be returned to the donors? What if it's a large amount? Will they find the creator and give it to them?

by ProAm 9y ago

It's thrown into an account that the creator can retrieve at anytime. A hole incorrectly insinuates it's never retrievable. This is a good way to get away from Googles monetization handcuffs.

joshuamorton 9y ago

See my edit, if you didn't already, but there exist services that already do that. The asymmetry created by this kind of "pay me without my permission" means that someone providing a service now has to do a lot of extra work if they want to get paid, whereas a user who wants to pay someone doesn't. That's not a good system if your goal is really to get money to creators.

ProAm 9y ago
I still feel the benefits outweigh the risks of being at the whim of Google's inscrutable changes.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Are you a youtube creator (or someone in a similar space, twitch streamer, freelance journalist, etc.)
  - ProAm 9y ago
    I am but I don't monetize my channel, but know several people that do and have had videos go from monetizable to non-monetizable for what seems to be chimerical reasons. And the autonomous review process to address the situation seems laughable but this is on-par for Googles customer service department/process.
  - cisanti 9y ago
    I am, and if Brave can play its card right, they can make a big blow to Google. They just need to get creators on board and right now 90% of creators are pissed at Google/YouTube, so the timing is perfect.
Ajedi32 9y ago
> someone providing a service now has to do a lot of extra work if they want to get paid, whereas a user who wants to pay someone doesn't Exactly. This system makes things easier on users at the expense of making it harder on creators. I think that's kinda the point though. If your funding method relies on consumers essentially donating their money to you, it's extremely important to make that experience as seamless for them as possible. Patreon is great, but it does require users to go out of their way and make a conscious decision to fund _you_ specifically. That's a lot of extra effort that person has to go through just to give their money away to a random site they happened to visit for a couple hours that month. With this system however the user just signs up for a single service _once_ and subscribes, and that's the full extent their involvement. The trade-off is that the content creator is now the one who has to go through the extra effort of setting up an account on this service, but unlike content consumers, the creator actually has an incentive to go through that process (free money) which makes it worthwhile for them.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >Exactly. This system makes things easier on users at the expense of making it harder on creators. I think that's kinda the point though. And my point is that such a system is unsustainable, due to asymmetry of work. Lets start with a few things that we can know are true: 1. In any system of patrons and artists, an artist will have more patrons than a patron has artists, or the system is unsustainable. 2. I could create a competitor to Brave, "Fearful", tomorrow. So could anyone else. As a creator, its possible that every single patron of mine will pay me through a different service, I then need to register myself in all of them, and either manually, or via a middleman, convert the disparate currencies to my preferred one. But, because there are so many different payment methods, its likely that the long tail isn't worth my time to receive payment from. Systems that accept payment on behalf of someone else and require work on the part of that party to receive the payment create this loss. On the other hand, even if every creator has their own payment platform, there's no loss. Patrons simply don't pay the long tail of the creators that they use, and instead only make payments to the ones they appreciate the most. iow, asymmetry means that creator-focused services are the only ones that can be successful except for very niche groups. So, if your goal is to support blockchain tech, Brave is great. If on the other hand, your goal is to get paid by patrons, its not.
tekromancr 9y ago
But the status quo of "Put tons of work producing content and hope that youtube doesn't demonetize, because then my patreon links get deleted." is also pretty fucked. I am just glad somebody is trying to fix content monetization online without taking 30% for, what, handling payments?
- virgilp 9y ago
  Well, in all honesty, youtube does a lot more than "handle payments" - it actually serves those videos, it finds advertisers and collects money, matches content with ads. You can argue how well it does the job (especially at the last bullet point) but it should be obvious that it does do in fact more than just "collect money".
  - tekromancr 9y ago
    I was speaking more of platforms like patreon.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

segmondy 9y ago

What if the creator doesn't retrieve it? How long is it held? Will it be returned to the donors? What if it's a large amount? Will they find the creator and give it to them?