Topic: Thoughts on Bold browser? - formerly Braver - page 2. (Read 1084 times)
you gotta give kyc to withdrawal from brave thats a joke and a half
Will there be a confusion because I mean Brave and Braver Browser, if they want a fork they should go for a different name, not something that is very much associated to Brave Browser,
The name is same because they are a fork of Brave browser; like bitcoin forks are more or less have bitcoin in their name. Otherwise, people will have hard time finding out the source of the browser and so does the purpose.I personally prefer another name, something like 'Unbraved'
~
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Braver will pick up but why the need to defend your model and diss others?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Braver will pick up but why the need to defend your model and diss others?
To dissuade others from leaving and kill the "competition"
The problem is with the probability and he said that because he still views it as a business. I think if Braver are positioned as a community-backed product like Bitcoin or any open-source projects that are loved by many, then donation or even contribution on the code is going to a solid backing.
It definitely won't make as many profits as any money-oriented/business apps, but it could survive.
It definitely won't make as many profits as any money-oriented/business apps, but it could survive.
Of course it's a business but the always-free, no-ad, donation only model is a recognised business model and has proven itself to be profitable even in fintech (if not especially). Some have definitely outlived money-oriented counterparts. I think it's just a case of sour grapes for the Brave CEO to say that about Braver.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Braver will pick up but why the need to defend your model and diss others?
They are removing all the unnecessary crap that they implemented to make money or push their own custodian services forward.
But that's kind of my point. Why take a browser filled with unnecessary crap (Chromium), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, add in a bunch of different unnecessary crap (Brave), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, and use what is left (Braver) because it has a handful of good features, when you can get all the same good features (and more) on Firefox without all the unnecessary crap even existing in the first place? All Chromium based browsers still phone home to Google in some way. Even with the best efforts of the Braver team, there is undoubtedly going to be some left over code and remnants of various bloatware and other privacy invading nonsense from both Google and Brave in there somewhere.As you say, why not just use a clean base (Firefox) and install Metamask? Why use a browser with a ton of unnecessary crap in it just because it comes with Metamask pre-installed?
Additionally to this crazy Brave/Braver add/remove unnecessary crap, it is much better to install extension in firefox for one reason: Firefox dev team is much more active and trusted imo.
I doubt brave or braver dev team can outpace firefox dev team in keeping the browser safe, secure, free and private. Brave still have many other concerns, like promoting BAT, KYC etc... which firefox is mainly focused in that and has a much larger community support.
Does anyone know how much profit can be made from that browser?
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
Some real life stats (I am from Belgium).
I earned a whopping 1 BAT in may and in june I already earned 0.3 BAT. So rewards are very small, but maybe a bit more than bitcoin faucets.
Probably you will earn more if you are from a Tier 1 country.
This could become a better version without those bull s..., now we know that Brave was set up just for the developers to make tons of money, they already had their token in the market, just enough for a profit, so why those ads and the referral links, they are like hitting many birds with one stone, rewards is not really high only have less than $1 after a month with those ads.
yeah brave was so promising, but in the end its just a browser with ads and you get like couple hundred cents every monthand brave token isn't going anywhere higher and market is not bullish about it anymore
probably a lot of brave users feel a lot like fooled
copper member
Activity: 2800
Merit: 1179
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Does anyone know how much profit can be made from that browser?
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
First of all, Brave browser is just a rip off on Firefox mobile browser and I agree with you that the project just want to achieve a quick money on there ICO. There road map and target market are very limited due to competitors. There is no much profit when used there adblocker to earn BAT and the worst was you need to do KYC in able to withdraw your coins which contradicts there privacy protection policy.
Lastly, They are paying much token for referral to achieve a target user so that they can use it to hype the project even though not all user being invited are really using Brave browser after they get reward. This token giveaway really affect all investors who buy token from there pocket. The price is continuously falling due to token sell off.
Does anyone know how much profit can be made from that browser?
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?
And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.
will remove it.
This could become a better version without those bull s..., now we know that Brave was set up just for the developers to make tons of money, they already had their token in the market, just enough for a profit, so why those ads and the referral links, they are like hitting many birds with one stone, rewards is not really high only have less than $1 after a month with those ads.
i have a feeling that a very large percentage (like maybe 90%) of those who have ever used Brave browser have been using it because of its (micro) earning potential not its promise of privacy. that is why things like KYC, lack of privacy in design and a lot of other crap they pulled didn't bother their users and has not dropped the number of people who are still using it.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.
I agree 100%. Sometime ago, I also downloaded it and like 90-95% of the people, I did it mainly for the rewards. They do have however some nice extra features such as the built-in ad blocker, tor, faster speed compared to Chrome. But I stopped using Brave, because the rewards are too low and I don't want to do KYC with Uphold for a couple of bucks.
I don't see many people who will use Braver browser. Project is doomed.
A bit weird for the CEO to say Braver won't work just because it dropped revenue streams and can only rely on donations. Sure, but if it does turn out to be a good product and there are users who definitely find resonance with that, it could work why not?
The problem is with the probability and he said that because he still views it as a business. I think if Braver are positioned as a community-backed product like Bitcoin or any open-source projects that are loved by many, then donation or even contribution on the code is going to a solid backing.
It definitely won't make as many profits as any money-oriented/business apps, but it could survive.
A bit weird for the CEO to say Braver won't work just because it dropped revenue streams and can only rely on donations. Sure, but if it does turn out to be a good product and there are users who definitely find resonance with that, it could work why not? I still use some stuff today that has always relied entirely on donations (Irfanview is one haha). Bitcoin development too, actually, if you look at it (and don't say blockstream haha).
i have a feeling that a very large percentage (like maybe 90%) of those who have ever used Brave browser have been using it because of its (micro) earning potential not its promise of privacy. that is why things like KYC, lack of privacy in design and a lot of other crap they pulled didn't bother their users and has not dropped the number of people who are still using it.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.
Will there be a confusion because I mean Brave and Braver Browser, if they want a fork they should go for a different name, not something that is very much associated to Brave Browser,
The name is same because they are a fork of Brave browser; like bitcoin forks are more or less have bitcoin in their name. Otherwise, people will have hard time finding out the source of the browser and so does the purpose. 
I'm also curious how this would work. Brave CEO already said that the fork won't work without the revenue streams.
It seems like Brave CEO either has no idea how much a useful project can collect from donations or is saying that as an attempt to thwart it since it represents a serious competitor or simply trying to find excuses to justify what they did after they got exposed.Clunk UX sounds like bugs to fix. Please file. But they want to drop several major revenue legs. That leaves nothing but donations for funding. Won't work.
Just take WikiPedia as an example. It has been running for years and they mainly rely on donations (no ads, no partnerships, no official sponsors...)
Will there be a confusion because I mean Brave and Braver Browser, if they want a fork they should go for a different name, not something that is very much associated to Brave Browser, they can hold a contest on what name they can give to this fork, but this something to watch out, fork is a hot item everything something bad or controversial happens to the original project.
~
Of course he said that. The ubiquitousness of free and open source software proves that he is wrong. I used Electrum about 10 minutes ago. What revenue streams does it have? Also, surely the fact that he has just admitted that Brave is completely dependent on funding from companies like Binance is a huge red flag? Anything Binance want - more imbedded code, unique tracking, user data - they can strong arm Brave in to implementing with he tthreat of removing their funding if they don't comply.
Not sure if Electrum is the right comparison. I brought up Firefox browser because it is also an open source project and I thought it was self-funded (and with help from donors) all this time. I wonder what would happen to them if Google backs out of the deal (or threaten to)? What I'm trying to say is he could be right that no browser will survive for a very long time if it doesn't have any type of revenue stream unless there are always kind souls who would keep on donating to cover up the cost/s.Of course he said that. The ubiquitousness of free and open source software proves that he is wrong. I used Electrum about 10 minutes ago. What revenue streams does it have? Also, surely the fact that he has just admitted that Brave is completely dependent on funding from companies like Binance is a huge red flag? Anything Binance want - more imbedded code, unique tracking, user data - they can strong arm Brave in to implementing with he tthreat of removing their funding if they don't comply.
~ as I'm expecting this one to be a bit more clunky due to probably lack of development.
Work just started and yeah, everyone doesn't expect it to be smooth right away. I wanted to try this browser after another user mentioned it on another thread. Unfortunately, they don't provide installer since they're still in migration process and i don't want compile it from source code.
Same here. Good for the team behind this fork, but browser forks tend to go unnoticed by the majority of ppl and end up being these obscure web browsers that almost no one uses. Examples of this are Waterfox, Pale Moon, Basilisk...these are Firefox forks so maybe things will be different with Braver?
Still, either they implement cool features (even cooler if they're privacy features that actually work) or they risk joining the long list of obscure and forgotten "privacy focused" web browsers like IceCat, Iridium, Comodo Dragon, etc...
Well, it depends on the user's experience I guess. Braver came out because of Brave's actions. I don't know if I am correct on this one but I think it's the same case with Firefox and Brave. They became popular because Google f*cked its user's privacy. Of course Brave is not as popular as Chrome but you get the point...right? Still, either they implement cool features (even cooler if they're privacy features that actually work) or they risk joining the long list of obscure and forgotten "privacy focused" web browsers like IceCat, Iridium, Comodo Dragon, etc...
I just read that Braver will continue to rely on Brave's development and updates. They'll just keep on merging future updates after stripping adwares. That would mean less cost for them. I guess that could work.
It's almost like trying to clean up windows!
Yeah, that's a great analogy.You can sit for hours and hours with a clean install of Windows 10, changing settings, changing app permissions, uninstalling features, disabling Cortana, disabling telemetry, disabling services, deleting files, blocking connections to certain IPs, fiddling with the registry, installing third party privacy software, and still end up with a product that just can't stop sending all your data to Microsoft. Or, you could install Linux.
It's not the first project that wanted to be cool and fair to its users that has tuned the opposite
Yup. As soon as there is profit to made, their ideals and the interests of their users go out the window. It's the exact same behavior as we see from various crypto exchanges or services. Protect the privacy and security of our users' information, or sell them out so we can make maximum profit? It's always option number two. 
So we take Chromium, strip out some (but certainly not all) of the privacy invasion, tracking, and data harvesting, create Brave browser, replace the all the privacy invasion we've stripped out with some of Brave's own privacy invasion, ads, KYC, etc., then take that, strip out some (but again probably not all) of Brave's privacy invasion, and call it Braver browser.
This!
It's almost like trying to clean up windows!
Yeah, it's the same noble thing we've seen with some crap coins,a community takeover, we're trying to give back the community what was once a cool browser, look we're doing something, bla bla bla, that community is dead, unfortunately. The ones that needed a real browser without crap switched to something else a long time ago, the ones that remained with brave did so for the tokens, the rest of 0.1% is something negligible that might not like the new layout and they are also out.
That thing is dead from the start and so it is Brave with all their tokens and whatever plans they had for it for the future.
It's not the first project that wanted to be cool and fair to its users that has tuned the opposite, it's not the first revival of such a project and it won't be the last.
One thing is certain, I won't touch any of them, Brave, Braver, Bravos, Bravier, Bravirium, and what other forks will surely come out of this.
They are removing all the unnecessary crap that they implemented to make money or push their own custodian services forward.
But that's kind of my point. Why take a browser filled with unnecessary crap (Chromium), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, add in a bunch of different unnecessary crap (Brave), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, and use what is left (Braver) because it has a handful of good features, when you can get all the same good features (and more) on Firefox without all the unnecessary crap even existing in the first place? All Chromium based browsers still phone home to Google in some way. Even with the best efforts of the Braver team, there is undoubtedly going to be some left over code and remnants of various bloatware and other privacy invading nonsense from both Google and Brave in there somewhere.As you say, why not just use a clean base (Firefox) and install Metamask? Why use a browser with a ton of unnecessary crap in it just because it comes with Metamask pre-installed?
Jump to: