←back to thread

323 points plusCubed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
egypturnash ◴[] No.18736059[source]
I just dug up info on how Brave’s contributions thing works and it feels like such a mess.

According to https://brave.com/publishers/

- once you have accumulated $100 in contributions they email “the webmaster at your site” and the owner of your domain according to the WHOIS. I assume this is “webmaster@domain.name”, which I sure don’t have set up on my personal site.

- you have to “check your balance frequently and transfer funds wherever you choose”, which suggests that there’s no way to just say “send my my balance every month” and forget about it.

This whole model totally breaks down when you remember that there’s a ton of independent creators who don’t have their own sites, but instead post stuff on another site. Is Brave going to realize that I’m following this particular person on YouTube, that person on Tumblr, this other person on Deviantart, etc, etc? And are they going to ping them or are they just gonna tell the people who own the site?

The page where you sign up to receive payments (https://publishers.basicattentiontoken.org) makes it sound like they understand YouTube accounts and nothing else, and as a creator whos interest in pivoting to video is nonexistent, screw that, I’ll stick with Patreon and it’s opt-in model that just transfers money into my bank account every month as long as I have patrons.

replies(8): >>18736102 #>>18736127 #>>18736278 #>>18736428 #>>18736434 #>>18736772 #>>18736773 #>>18737539 #
mattferderer ◴[] No.18736773[source]
It's been a while since I started using Brave but I felt they were pretty up front with how the payments worked.

I do understand the frustration though of those who don't see this. Brave could warn visitors donating when the content owner hasn't set up Brave Payments. Brave could refund said money back to the visitor if it goes unclaimed after a while. Just random ideas from someone who actually likes their attempt.

replies(2): >>18736937 #>>18737528 #
jacques_chester ◴[] No.18737528[source]
My understanding is that automatically refunding as part of the agreement with the Brave user is probably workable.

Even more workable is to be opt-in only. That's what I would do (to the point that I developed a protocol that's purely opt-in).

replies(2): >>18741777 #>>18744377 #
brandnewlow ◴[] No.18744377[source]
We just posted a list of the many changes we're pushing live to address the problems found in our UI: https://brave.com/rewards-update/

One of the items listed is looking into blocking all tips to unverified publishers altogether. We hear people's concerns and are going to look into it. In the meantime we've dropped all creative assets (photos) for unverified publishers and are also adding a clear alert saying unverified publishers are in fact not-participating yet in the program. Screenshots in the link. Thanks for your feedback and for caring about this being done properly.

replies(1): >>18745485 #
1. jacques_chester ◴[] No.18745485[source]
It's good you are trying to listen to feedback. But do pay attention to a common thread: most publishers don't want opt-out, they want opt-in. I'm biased because I designed a different scheme[0] some time back which I guess in some universes would have made me a competitor.

So speaking as an alt-universe competitor, opt-in is the safest move. You can just as easily calculate an imaginary amount of money that would be collected and tell potential publishers that number (that was my plan, because of this exact scenario).

One more thing:

you should lawyer up.

You need a firm with strengths in consumer law, trademarks, charities fraud and trusts law, preferably able to opine across each of your physical HQ jurisdiction, the governing-law jurisdiction in your ToS and wherever Tom Scott lives.

[0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9853964B2