Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

> you know what else one can do? Try it. Wire 10$ into a wallet. Send BAT tokens to websites that you appreciate.

1. That money doesn't go to the websites, since they have to make a wallet first (and I can damn well guarantee you that 95+% of the blogs I visit don't have it set up)

2. I'm not paying for $10 of cryptocurrency just so Brave can take 30% off my transactions.

View on HN

But isn't this fundamentally better than the current privacy-destroying ad-tracker hellscape we live in? Sure, some of us can use adblockers, but that won't work if everyone starts using them. Companies will switch to different, still invasive systems. Brave's idea is a lot closer to what I'd like the ideal world to look like, even if my ideal world wouldn't involve a middleman that took a 30% cut.

> But isn't this fundamentally better than the current privacy-destroying ad-tracker hellscape we live in?

> even if my ideal world wouldn't involve a middleman that took a 30% cut.

“Knowing where the trap is — that's the first step in evading it.” - Frank Herbert, Dune

The Brave take on self funded wallet tips is 5%. 30% is take on ad share if you have Brave ads enabled. You keep 70%, or in the example mentioned above your supported creator would get 95%… that’s in line with most crowdfunding platforms.

You're not wrong, but my bigger point was a general stance against tech pessimism. It seems people make up their mind in about 3 seconds and come up with many reasons as to why something is absolutely bad in a very binary way.

As said, you can avoid the crypto part altogether, it's not mandatory. Or, even taking your issues into account, you can try to find some websites you like that do have a wallet, and have a play with it.

Wikipedia is a good example of a verified site that most people use

If I'm donating to Wikipedia, I'm doing it directly. They deserve 100% of my donation, not 70%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com