6 ms·

Another shady practice: you could donate to any website, but Brave itself received the amount if not claimed by the website creator. Users did not know. (https:

Another shady practice: you could donate to any website, but Brave itself received the amount if not claimed by the website creator. Users did not know. (https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/01/13/brave-web-browser-no-longer-claims-to-fundraise-on-behalf-of-others-so-thats-nice/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/01/13/brave-web-br..., https://redd.it/a8g1i9 https://redd.it/a8g1i9) Don't use Brave. Tell others not to use it.

chrisco255 5y ago
That's not true. If the website or user does not claim the rewards within 3 months it goes back to the user.
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  Correct. Tips and contributions to unverified properties remain [on the user's device] for up to 90 days. The browser will make routine attempts to send the tip through; if it fails to do so after 90 days those rewards are unlocked and can be given to another creator.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Brave can't send BAT to a site that doesn't accept BAT. For example, HN doesn't. When I click on the BAT icon, the first thing I see is a message saying the tokens will remain in my wallet until the site accepts my tip.
- judge2020 5y ago
  This is now how it used to work - which is why the OP uses “could” instead of “can” - see the linked article.
  - jonathansampson 5y ago
    The way it "used to work" was that Brave gave users BAT for using the Browser and Brave Payments (now Brave Rewards). The user could then visit a site/channel, and Brave would communicate if the property was verified or not (e.g. a verified property had a check-mark, and an unverified property did not). If you tipped a verified property, the BAT (as gift from Brave) would go to the creator's associated wallet. If the property was not verified, the BAT would go into a settlement wallet, awaiting the creator's registration. Again, this was Brave's BAT effectively being earmarked for a creator who had not yet verified. The feedback at the time from the community was that the UI/UX was confusing; indeed it was. We quickly modified the model, and today it is substantially better as a result. Unverified properties are now as explicitly identified as verified ones, and tips to the former are held on-device for up to 90 days.
ahofmann 5y ago
Just because something is not perfect, it should not be condemned. I don't understand why alternatives are often held to much higher standards than the established service.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  aren't the alternatives in this case held to a lower standard? Like the kind of shady behavior you see from these alternatives, often in some way tied into crypto stuff, you don't even see from Google or Microsoft, let alone from someone like Mozilla Brave runs on the exact same ad model as Chrome, they just inserted themselves as the middle man. There's no actual value provided here and it's basically just "big corporate bad" marketing
  - jonathansampson 5y ago
    "Brave runs on the exact same ad model as Chrome…" You couldn't be more mistaken here. I covered the history of digital advertising and the introduction of Brave's model here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI. In short, Brave's model is largely the inversion of Google's model. With Brave, users must opt-in. Google doesn't ask you to opt-in. With Brave, user data remains on device. Google requires the remote collection of your data, as well as the broadcasting of it to third-parties. With Brave, users decide when and how many ads they will be shown. Google shows you as many as they can get away with. With Brave, user's collect 70% of the revenue for their participation. Google gives you nothing, but takes quite a bit. With Brave, Brave Software learns nothing about you, your interests, or your browsing history. Google learns quite a bit about you, harvesting as much data as they can get away with, and using it across contexts and domains.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      I did test out Brave a while ago and the reward system was on by default. I had to go to the settings to turn it off, and in fact this option did not sync. So whenever I installed it on a new device I had to turn it off again, and I suspect that's deliberate. I also don't think that Google shares my information with third parties, pretty sure they say explicitly they don't do that. And as to Brave's model of pooling users and preserving anonimity, isn't this exactly what Google's FLoC is? As far as I'm aware the dreaded third party cookies seem to be on their way out. I'll give Brave props for being a frontrunner on this, but that's not an inversion of Google's model, this appears to be exactly where everyone is going.
LMYahooTFY 5y ago
Relevant part; >What happens if you send a tip to an unverified creator? I click “tip” for my YouTube channel, and the screen below comes up. The “Learn more” link goes to the Brave FAQ, which says that no funds leave the browser until the creator verifies — but admits that previous versions of Brave worked differently, and sent the tokens to Brave in the hope that the creator would sign up at some point. It would seem this is possibly no longer the case, I'd love an update on it.
bogwog 5y ago
Did any lawsuits come out of this? That seems like actual fraud, and Eich or others in the company should be in prison.
- celsoazevedo 5y ago
  The money goes back to the wallet that sent it after a period of time if no one claims it.
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  The claim that Brave was collecting money on behalf of others is quite misleading. See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27553383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27553383.
rideontime 5y ago
Lots of people are pointing out that this isn't the case anymore, but the fact is that it used to work this way, and they only changed it after backlash. That was enough to turn me off of Brave forever.
- fastball 5y ago
  Yeah, I too dislike it when companies respond positively in response to criticism. I prefer the orgs I interact with to be perfect and never make mistakes and when they do (but they don't because I only interact with perfect institutions) I prefer them to double-down instead of improve.
  - monetus 5y ago
    Your hyperbole seems to be purposefully taking the parent post in bad faith. He is expressing skepticism towards their original intentions and you like how they responded. No need to talk past each other.
    - fastball 5y ago
      I don't agree. GC cannot speak to their intentions, so at the end of the day this is just holding them to a standard that it is unreasonable to ever hold any institution to. Humans make mistakes and organizations are comprised of humans. What matters is how they address such mistakes, which I've only seen positive improvement from Brave.
  - CharlesW 5y ago
    The point is that Brave can't be trusted by default. It's nice that they roll back dark patterns when they're caught by people like Tom Scott, I guess?
    - fastball 5y ago
      I think there is a difference between an imperfect implementation of something that has never been done before (especially when your competition is an adtech giant oligopoly) and "dark patterns". Worth pointing out that part of the reason it was hard to just refund people who donated to non-verified creators was Brave actually caring about privacy, so the donations in question were completely anonymous. So when it was pointed out that it's still a problem, they came up with a solution that I think strikes a good balance.

chrisco255 5y ago

That's not true. If the website or user does not claim the rewards within 3 months it goes back to the user.

jonathansampson 5y ago
Correct. Tips and contributions to unverified properties remain [on the user's device] for up to 90 days. The browser will make routine attempts to send the tip through; if it fails to do so after 90 days those rewards are unlocked and can be given to another creator.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Brave can't send BAT to a site that doesn't accept BAT. For example, HN doesn't. When I click on the BAT icon, the first thing I see is a message saying the tokens will remain in my wallet until the site accepts my tip.

judge2020 5y ago
This is now how it used to work - which is why the OP uses “could” instead of “can” - see the linked article.
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  The way it "used to work" was that Brave gave users BAT for using the Browser and Brave Payments (now Brave Rewards). The user could then visit a site/channel, and Brave would communicate if the property was verified or not (e.g. a verified property had a check-mark, and an unverified property did not). If you tipped a verified property, the BAT (as gift from Brave) would go to the creator's associated wallet. If the property was not verified, the BAT would go into a settlement wallet, awaiting the creator's registration. Again, this was Brave's BAT effectively being earmarked for a creator who had not yet verified. The feedback at the time from the community was that the UI/UX was confusing; indeed it was. We quickly modified the model, and today it is substantially better as a result. Unverified properties are now as explicitly identified as verified ones, and tips to the former are held on-device for up to 90 days.

ahofmann 5y ago

Just because something is not perfect, it should not be condemned. I don't understand why alternatives are often held to much higher standards than the established service.

Barrin92 5y ago
aren't the alternatives in this case held to a lower standard? Like the kind of shady behavior you see from these alternatives, often in some way tied into crypto stuff, you don't even see from Google or Microsoft, let alone from someone like Mozilla Brave runs on the exact same ad model as Chrome, they just inserted themselves as the middle man. There's no actual value provided here and it's basically just "big corporate bad" marketing
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  "Brave runs on the exact same ad model as Chrome…" You couldn't be more mistaken here. I covered the history of digital advertising and the introduction of Brave's model here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsrrT502luI. In short, Brave's model is largely the inversion of Google's model. With Brave, users must opt-in. Google doesn't ask you to opt-in. With Brave, user data remains on device. Google requires the remote collection of your data, as well as the broadcasting of it to third-parties. With Brave, users decide when and how many ads they will be shown. Google shows you as many as they can get away with. With Brave, user's collect 70% of the revenue for their participation. Google gives you nothing, but takes quite a bit. With Brave, Brave Software learns nothing about you, your interests, or your browsing history. Google learns quite a bit about you, harvesting as much data as they can get away with, and using it across contexts and domains.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I did test out Brave a while ago and the reward system was on by default. I had to go to the settings to turn it off, and in fact this option did not sync. So whenever I installed it on a new device I had to turn it off again, and I suspect that's deliberate. I also don't think that Google shares my information with third parties, pretty sure they say explicitly they don't do that. And as to Brave's model of pooling users and preserving anonimity, isn't this exactly what Google's FLoC is? As far as I'm aware the dreaded third party cookies seem to be on their way out. I'll give Brave props for being a frontrunner on this, but that's not an inversion of Google's model, this appears to be exactly where everyone is going.

LMYahooTFY 5y ago

Relevant part; >What happens if you send a tip to an unverified creator? I click “tip” for my YouTube channel, and the screen below comes up. The “Learn more” link goes to the Brave FAQ, which says that no funds leave the browser until the creator verifies — but admits that previous versions of Brave worked differently, and sent the tokens to Brave in the hope that the creator would sign up at some point. It would seem this is possibly no longer the case, I'd love an update on it.

bogwog 5y ago

Did any lawsuits come out of this? That seems like actual fraud, and Eich or others in the company should be in prison.

celsoazevedo 5y ago
The money goes back to the wallet that sent it after a period of time if no one claims it.
jonathansampson 5y ago
The claim that Brave was collecting money on behalf of others is quite misleading. See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27553383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27553383.

rideontime 5y ago

Lots of people are pointing out that this isn't the case anymore, but the fact is that it used to work this way, and they only changed it after backlash. That was enough to turn me off of Brave forever.

fastball 5y ago
Yeah, I too dislike it when companies respond positively in response to criticism. I prefer the orgs I interact with to be perfect and never make mistakes and when they do (but they don't because I only interact with perfect institutions) I prefer them to double-down instead of improve.
- monetus 5y ago
  Your hyperbole seems to be purposefully taking the parent post in bad faith. He is expressing skepticism towards their original intentions and you like how they responded. No need to talk past each other.
  - fastball 5y ago
    I don't agree. GC cannot speak to their intentions, so at the end of the day this is just holding them to a standard that it is unreasonable to ever hold any institution to. Humans make mistakes and organizations are comprised of humans. What matters is how they address such mistakes, which I've only seen positive improvement from Brave.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  The point is that Brave can't be trusted by default. It's nice that they roll back dark patterns when they're caught by people like Tom Scott, I guess?
  - fastball 5y ago
    I think there is a difference between an imperfect implementation of something that has never been done before (especially when your competition is an adtech giant oligopoly) and "dark patterns". Worth pointing out that part of the reason it was hard to just refund people who donated to non-verified creators was Brave actually caring about privacy, so the donations in question were completely anonymous. So when it was pointed out that it's still a problem, they came up with a solution that I think strikes a good balance.