Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The individual take has yet to be demonstrated, but do some math. $80B gross USD (at least; the IAB said $88B) spent on digital in US last year, say across 250M people (with Dr. Augustine Fou of NYU estimating fraud took $16.2B, lots of bots too). That is $320 gross ARPU if spread evenly -- which it is not. (Note we are worldwide and build for Europe and Asia too, not just at the US.)

Many of Brave's users at this early stage are "lead users" (Eric Von Hippel, MIT) and represent off-the-grid prospects because they block assiduously, either in Brave alone or with Brave + uBO or another solid blocker. Lead users are worth much more due to their high usage of search, ecommerce, and paid services. I would not be surprised if our users can make $70/year as we bring the system up in 2019 -- when ad deals will be harder to come by and we'll subsidize revenue from BAT's User Growth Pool -- and climb by 2020 to above .7 * 320 or $224 net user revenue per year.

Let's find out! We aim to find the fair price for human attention after blocking all the fraud, arbitrage, and abuse in the current system, using the BAT ecosystem.

Note that by default, user revenue share flows back monthly and anonymously to each user's top/pinned sites and creators on YouTube, Twitch (and more UGC platforms to come). We expect most users to avoid the bank-like AML/KYC/anti-sanction/anti-fraud checks required to take out their revenue, but legit users are welcome to cash out (our partner Uphold, and more to come, can exchange BAT <=> many fiats and cryptocurrencies/tokens).

If we are right, then most Brave users, with their individual data sets and Brave instances/agents, will in effect replace the corrupt, crowded intermediary space using and abusing remote scripts to target and confirm ads today. After we have the model performing, it's on to other browsers, games, podcast apps, and so on.

To support your numbers somewhat: iirc at one point about 5 years ago Bing was giving out ~$120 a year in Amazon gift cards if you were a heavy searcher on Bing

People already pay more than that to avoid ads on things like YouTube, Hulu, and other services. Given that people often spend quite a bit of time online, I wouldn’t be shocked if they’d be willing to not pay, but just “miss out” on a fraction of what they’d actively pay to avoid ads... to avoid ads. That of course is all before they consider that the system is designed to avoid them ever cashing out.

I’m guessing the population aware of and interested in ad blocking and the population willing to half ass it in Brave is very slim indeed. I suspect that a majority who have become motivated to use an ad blocker and especially a script blocker have no patience left for any incarnation of advertising, regardless of fractional “rewards” on offer.

We full ass, never half ass :-P. Also, nice try suggesting we get only a subset of users who care about ad blocking -- our main win vs. Chrome is speed, 2-8x faster on top news/media sites on mobile, and correlated lower data and battery costs.

Your negativity aside, the test has not been run to completion where it matters, in the market. I keep noping out of YouTube Red or TV or whatever it's called, because Brave blocks all ads there and (with forthcoming work to enable playback controls in various settings including cars) easily beats the pretty-terrible YouTube mobile app.

The idea of charging for Brave that you lead with occurred to us, but browsers and even non-corrupt ad blockers are free, so it looks like a high hill to climb. Perhaps with the slicker video controls and integration work, but anyway, glad we got past the assertion about "miniscule" revenue to users. In my experience, paying users beats charging them :-D.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact