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.
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.