Fear Uncertainty Doubt

ccn.com/firefox-founder-explains-why-brave-browser-couldnt-use-bitcoin-instead-of-bat/

cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/09/why-brave-browser-uses-basic-attention-token-bat-instead-of-bitcoin-btc/

finance.yahoo.com/news/firefox-founder-explains-why-brave-181518987.html
.
.
.

>k

Attached: jim_face_the_office_wojak.png (645x773, 11K)

and why not just use ETH?

>Is it a good sign to have lots of FUDders?
This is a misunderstanding. You have to trade against sentiment, but you can't gauge true sentiment by counting fud posts.

why not just use cash instead of crypto? why not just use wampam and corn instead of cash?

its already an ETH token.. so why not just use ETH directly?

Money skelly built eth exactly for this purpose... And here you are complaining about it. I fucking hate this place.

The project can work with any token that will represent the value of the system's utility, but using their own BAT gives an opportunity to expedite mass adoption by distributing user growth pool tokens. In other words, download the browser and get free money to help support your favourite creators. Now, creators are receiving tokens from their audience, and the creators enter the system. They have an incentive to market it, considering they get more tokens through referral, plus its another revenue stream, audience members may never donate hard earned money, but will donate tokens they received from ad watching. If Brave wanted to do this with BTC they'd have to drop millions on purchasing BTC, or somehow acquire a bunch from an impossibly generous early adopter. Also the economics are sound, there's a faultless circular channel of value flow from token purchaser to seller over multiple stages.

Some of these kids I swear... Triple777dingdingding see you in paradise

The main problem with bat isn’t just the economic model, it’s the whole idea of blocking ads and then turning them back on with a cut going to someone other than the website. It’s insanely stupid and evil and is going to end in lawsuits or worse. Add on top of that taking donations for people without their permission and you know you are dealing with some genuinely deranged developers. Bat makes the whole crypto industry look bad.

There are two types of ads being developed, publisher and browser. Browser ads are coming first, which open up as a full page in a new tab when prompted, this has nothing to do with the publisher and can be viewed when convenient. Publisher ads are those that will replace existing ads on websites, and in this case 15% (may not be exactly right, but the portion is slightly greater than existing distribution from Google) of generated BAT goes to the publisher, so they still get their fair share. This again incetivices publishers to get involved. Overall though, there are many people out there who contribute near nothing to creator revenue, only consume. BAT has the potential to open up this cohort and bring them back into supporting creators. The taking donations for people who didn't opt-in was just a misunderstanding. User growth pool tokens that arnt claimed recirculate into the pool. User funded tokens can't be donated to unverified pushers anymore. They responded to concerns immediately. The UI very clearly warns when a pushers is unverified now. Personally I think that a new content creation funding model like this is exactly what the internet needs. Creators are getting screwed by big digital marketing agencies. Give power back to the people to back the content they enjoy without being tracked and targeted. Give power back to people to create their content without fear of demonitization or censorship. I'd say simple rather than stupid, and what about this is evil?

>The project can work with any token that will represent the value of the system's utility
The system's utility is somewhat pointless in the first place as it doesn't appeal to anyone. If you're not interested in seeing ads, you can use any modern browser with an ad blocker. If you're braindead, you probably are using what your computer has installed by default. Brave doesn't appeal to either of these groups, especially so when both groups can just donate to content creators directly. They might even accept crypto. But brave taking donations for them using bat is a completely different thing, as hardly any website/creator has an interest in it, and they might freak out when they find out someone has been using their name (which already happens) for raising donations and sooner or later it will result in a legal action. The only solution to this problem is to make bat donations a opt-in thing, at which the whole system is dead. After all, why deal with ads when you can't use the token you get for anything?

This cannot ever work.

Maybe you prefer to have Google and FB continue to siphon 95% of all digital ad revenue into themselves while hoarding your data? Let's support a new player in the game.

There are obstacles involved in donating directly to publishers, in the form of credit cards, signing up to whatever avenue they support and that it's your own money. Download Brave, receive BAT regularly for being an active participant on the internet, donate it. Simple. Publishers freaking out from unknown donations in their name are reacting that way because of the distrustful sentiment around crypto being a scam. The reality is that the donated BAT is theirs, and is easily accessed. It is money in their pocket that they would not otherwise have. Nothing is truer or more impactful than that. The attitudes towards crypto and BAT will shift, and most publishers will understand and accept it. User funded tokens cannot be donated to unverified publishers, only growth pool tokens, which exist to expand the system through attracting unverified publishers to verify. Lawsuit for what?

Inshah Allah