No miner; in fact we were the first browser (to my knowledge) to block crypto-miners back in 2017/18 when they began appearing on the Web (and being delivered via third-party ad networks).

Brave does come with Brave Rewards, and optional component which enables users to participate in privacy-preserving advertising (ads are matched locally, on your device). Users who opt-in receive 70% of the associated revenue for ads they see. Rewards are delivered in the form of BAT (and ERC-20 token), which can be kept, or gifted to content creators across the Web as a means of support.

> Users who opt-in receive 70% of the associated revenue for ads they see.

The other 30 percent goes right to Brave's pockets. In other words, they directly profit off of showing you advertisements.

> Rewards are delivered in the form of BAT (and ERC-20 token), which can be kept, or gifted to content creators across the Web as a means of support.

*only if those creators have an ERC-20 wallet. Many creators (like Tom Scott) have had their likeness appropriated without their consent to advertise this monetization scheme, despite the fact that they have no intention of ever using the service. As such, Brave dangles their ad revenue over their head, refusing to pay out in anything other than their own altcoin. It's a scummy design, arguably many times worse than the act of advertising in the first place.

I hate ads, and I go to extreme lengths to stop them and the scummy behavior they inspire. That's why I can't support Brave in good conscience.

> The other 30 percent goes right to Brave's pockets. In other words, they directly profit off of showing you advertisements.

Correct. We are able to continue developing Brave with the remaining 30%. In this arrangement, the user chooses whether or not to opt-in, governs the degree to which they will participate, receives more than 2x what Brave gets, and never has their data harvested in the process. Win-win, no?

Regarding the Tom Scott topic, you're quite mistaken there as well. Please see this response (to another user in this thread) for context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31086397.

Brave offers auto-conversion of received BAT into various other types of assets and currencies. If you prefer Bitcoin, for example, you can choose to have your BAT automatically converted into that asset. No requirement to hold BAT.

> Correct. We are able to continue developing Brave with the remaining 30%. In this arrangement, the user chooses whether or not to opt-in, governs the degree to which they will participate, receives more than 2x what Brave gets, and never has their data harvested in the process. Win-win, no?

Not really? There's no reason you should be entitled to that money. You're effectively doing nothing in this scenario: at least traditional ads actually support the content that is delivered on the site you access. Blocking ads isn't morally objectionable, but playing the role of the middleman and the tax collector certainly is. You can pretend like you deserve the compensation all you want, but from a technical level it's a pretty petty move that's ultimately designed to take advantage of the end-user and turn them into revenue-generating cattle. Yes, they get more money per ad, but they also don't have the benefit of scale. Individually, these users make what, no more than $3 a month from opting-in to ads? Meanwhile, Brave pockets hundreds of thousands. It doesn't add up.

> Regarding the Tom Scott topic, you're quite mistaken there as well. Please see this response (to another user in this thread) for context

So, I wasn't mistaken. Reading through that comment, you're basically admitting that you made a mistake, and had to rush out an update as damage control for a pretty obviously dark pattern. Case closed, don't treat me like a moron.

> Brave offers auto-conversion of received BAT into various other types of assets and currencies. If you prefer Bitcoin, for example, you can choose to have your BAT automatically converted into that asset. No requirement to hold BAT.

But you still need to hold crypto. That's not a refutation for the ERC-20 wallet point.

Ultimately, I think the Brave team is falling into the self-righteous Apple trap. Pretending like you always know what's best for your users and hiding behind a guise of privacy is pretty laughable, and it certainly doesn't make for good optics in the eyes of the greater FOSS and privacy community.

My only problem is the KYC. I'm happy people are making money with ads. The KYC stuff is contrary to the privacy narrative. Fix that and I'm sold as a user, publisher and ad buyer.

KYC isn't required for users. You can download Brave, opt-in to Rewards, earn BAT, and support content creators across the Web, and all without KYC. But if you wish to deposit/withdraw, then KYC is required (by relevant AML laws/regulations). Brave can't break the law if we wish to reform the Web into a privacy-preserving medium for communication and more. It's not up to us whether KYC is part of the equation; we have to follow the law.

Move to a different country that respects freedom. There are full exchanges with no KYC.

Thanks for squashing that rumor. I'll definitely give brave a try with that crypto rumor resolved and the news that brave cuts out amp

I'm a joe blow. Average user. I've been using brave for 3+ years. I try the other browsers fairly regularly. Always come back to brave. Check the brave:// flags (?), and go through every option under settings.

I have the crypto off, but - looking more at the brave site (including the many problems), I'm beginning to err.... be convinced(!?).

They do have a weird crypto thing (not a miner, as far as I know) but it's easy to disable and forget about.

They’re monetized by selling ads in exchange for BAT, plus they probably hold plenty of BAT which they can sell over time as they continue to increase its value.