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 com

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.