2 ms·

What a facile turn you took there. Google and Facebook have agreements with the websites they place the ads on. They asked for those ads to be there. Brave did

• ac29 7y ago
  I think I misunderstood your comment - you are right, Brave's status quo is that they keep all of the revenue from by replacing publishers ads (minus they amount they give to users). My point was that in theory, if: 1) advertisers were willing to pay Brave the same amount as they do existing advertisers, and 2) Brave took a similar cut as existing advertisers (including user payouts), and 3) Publishers were actually taking BAT from Brave Then there wouldn't be much of a financial difference in who was placing ads. #3 is obviously not the case currently, which seems to be the point you were making. To be 100% clear: I don't support what Brave is doing, have never used their products, and think their entire business model and its associated crypto-nonsense is at best a waste of time.
  • NelsonMinar 7y ago
    Fair enough. I think the concept of some alternate way of paying publishers is great. But that's not what Brave is doing. They're more like the AdBlocker Plus shakedown, where they deprive a site of their ad revenue and then say "well if you want some of that back you can have part of it back from us by showing the ads we want you to."