Why does a privacy-oriented browser use the KYC-oriented Uphold service?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I think the whole BAT thing needs more development

1 Like

Just keep bumping your own post before the two months are us, and you can keep it open indefinitely. I would rather see the ability to reopening a closed thread if there was a valid reason.

Governments are desperate for more tax money and thus they want to tax you on the pennies you earn from ads. If you just give everything you earn to support the creators you like, nothing need be reported. I never used auto-contribute, I just donated manually.


“Just”? That means setting some sort of calendar event every 2 months, then getting back to the site, then going through the trouble of pointlessly bumping my thread even if I don’t want to bump it after only 2 months.

And it still won’t solve the problem of updating threads that were started by others, as was the case here.

Look, I’ve put a lot of thought into this. I’ve rebuked every single argument people brought against keeping threads open. If you think you have a new argument, please read carefully that Reddit thread, and I assure you, it won’t be something that can be described starting with “Just”.

Why would you rather see threads automatically closed?

Anyway, that’s a totally different discussion, and you’re welcome to reply in that Reddit thread… oh wait.

So let’s say on topic here.

What’s the point of this Uphold gatekeeper?

Happy to help provide some clarity on this.

There are different states and options for users within Brave Rewards.

The default behavior when users opt-in is for the user to remain anonymous within the ecosystem, and earn, hold and distribute BAT within the ecosystem. Users can do this without having to go through Uphold, or a custodial partner.

BAT’s intended purpose is as a unit of account for attention and attention based services within the platform. Users can utilize Brave Rewards, without going through Uphold.

If users wish to take their BAT out of the ecosystem, or self-fund their wallets with fiat to BAT, we’ve put the flow in place that currently includes Uphold, and will include Gemini and Bitflyer this year (we’ve posted about that in our blog).

The reason for requiring a custodial partner for converting fiat to BAT to self-fund wallets, or for taking earned BAT out of the ecosystem is due to regulatory compliance, and to ensure that Brave is operating in legal compliance.

For example, if Brave were to provide an option for people to onramp fiat to BAT or offramp BAT to fiat off-platform without a regulatory compliant custodial partner like Uphold, Brave would be violating anti-money laundering regulations in different regions. This is not an issue specific to Brave. The vast majority of onramps/offramps between fiat and crypto are required to operate under the same regulatory compliance.

The same requirement is in place for verified creators, for settling tokens earned from contributions.

However, BAT is also an ERC20 token on the Ethereum blockchain, and has many secondary utility cases. You can see a comprehensive set of examples in our recent State of the BAT blog post: https://brave.com/state-of-the-bat/

This isn’t to say that it will always be in this state. There are three phases of our BAT roadmap:

Mercury & Gemini: BAT utility in Brave, publisher and creator flows, Brave Ads.

Apollo: Progressive Decentralization, as we’ve outlined in our Themis blog posts on our site.

The team is currently working on adding support for additional BYOW (bring your own wallet) options that include the Gemini and Bitflyer options mentioned above, along with other popular custodial partner options. Having options on this front is important.

It’s worth noting that the regulatory landscape with crypto was extremely unclear when we had our token launch in May 2017 (the US regulators, for example, had not commented or released guidance related to crypto projects at the time). While the landscape has gotten more clear over time, there certainly is room for improvement and clarity. I suspect that more clarity will come with time, but in the meantime, Brave cannot put the business at regulatory risk by removing involvement of custodial partners for the use cases that require bringing fiat into the platform, or removing BAT from the BR ecosystem to an external wallet.

I hope that this helps clarify why there are custodial partners for the use cases outlined above.


Thanks for clarifying, Luke. I understand how having a fiat onramp or off-ramp is a regulatory landmine. I’m not suggesting dealing with fiat.

As I asked in my initial post, what about allowing users to deposit BAT into their Brave account? That way Brave never has to touch fiat. The user gets an Ethereum address for their Brave wallet, then they transfer BAT into it.

1 Like

Completely agree. You should be able to withdraw and deposit from a non-custodial wallet, both for Brave Rewards and also for Creators. The fact this isn’t possible, while Brave was literally serving Shapeshift killing the KYC monster ads not too long ago is absurd.

We’re not talking about fiat onramps. Keep your exchange partners and offer this as another option.

1 Like

Why is this so true?