4 ms·

That's a misleading way to frame it; Brave distributed BAT tokens to its users at the time (this was in 2018). We then asked those users to give (or "mark") tho

That's a misleading way to frame it; Brave distributed BAT tokens to its users at the time (this was in 2018). We then asked those users to give (or "mark") those tokens to their favorite content creators. Some gave them to verified creators (who were shown with a check-mark, similar to Twitter), while others gave them to unverified creators (who had no distinguishing marks, similar again to Twitter). When the creator was unverified, the BAT (which Brave gave to the user) was deposited into a settlement wallet, waiting to be claimed (similar to how PayPal lets you email money to others). Needless to say, there were may naive UI/UX components in the product and process, and the community feedback that we acted upon (quickly, within a couple days) was phenomenal. Read more at https://brave.com/rewards-update/ https://brave.com/rewards-update/.

opheliate 5y ago
I disagree with you that it's a misleading way to frame your company's actions. Even if users all knew that the creators had no relationship with Brave, the company was still accepting donations on their behalf, which is what the parent comment said. And to be clear, I'm highly doubtful that the users were all aware that there was no relationship there. Framing the distinction as being between "verified" and "unverified" creators is disingenuous IMO: On any other platform, creators being "unverified" would mean they'd signed up, but just hadn't confirmed some details yet. The comparison of the check-marks to Twitter is also very strange, Twitter's own UI would prime users to think that a check-mark signified a notable user, not just any user who'd signed up. Whereas Brave's "unverified" users have no relationship to the company whatsoever. Perhaps this was all just naivete on the part of Brave, but it's very concerning to me that a company which (presumably) intends to become the de-facto method of monetising content could possibly be so naive as to how their actions would be perceived.
SahAssar 5y ago
When comparing to twitter you fail to mention two large differences: 1. You don't donate to people via twitter. 2. The people on twitter actually signed up for twitter. If you actually think it was a mistake then perhaps stop defending it. If you don't think it was a mistake then stop explaining away to controversy by saying it was "naive UI/UX".
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  I'm defending the model, but not that particular iteration of the UI/UX. People weren't donating their own money at the time either; they were effectively telling Brave who they'd like to support. Brave would then take Brave's BAT tokens (which we set aside for this purpose), and marked them for that creator (we would then engage in outreach efforts).

opheliate 5y ago

I disagree with you that it's a misleading way to frame your company's actions. Even if users all knew that the creators had no relationship with Brave, the company was still accepting donations on their behalf, which is what the parent comment said. And to be clear, I'm highly doubtful that the users were all aware that there was no relationship there. Framing the distinction as being between "verified" and "unverified" creators is disingenuous IMO: On any other platform, creators being "unverified" would mean they'd signed up, but just hadn't confirmed some details yet. The comparison of the check-marks to Twitter is also very strange, Twitter's own UI would prime users to think that a check-mark signified a notable user, not just any user who'd signed up. Whereas Brave's "unverified" users have no relationship to the company whatsoever. Perhaps this was all just naivete on the part of Brave, but it's very concerning to me that a company which (presumably) intends to become the de-facto method of monetising content could possibly be so naive as to how their actions would be perceived.

SahAssar 5y ago

When comparing to twitter you fail to mention two large differences: 1. You don't donate to people via twitter. 2. The people on twitter actually signed up for twitter. If you actually think it was a mistake then perhaps stop defending it. If you don't think it was a mistake then stop explaining away to controversy by saying it was "naive UI/UX".

jonathansampson 5y ago
I'm defending the model, but not that particular iteration of the UI/UX. People weren't donating their own money at the time either; they were effectively telling Brave who they'd like to support. Brave would then take Brave's BAT tokens (which we set aside for this purpose), and marked them for that creator (we would then engage in outreach efforts).