I was recently talking with @gnukeith over DM on Twitter, and he asked if he was missing something about why people perceive crypto and blockchains as bloated features in a browser. This made me realize it’s common feedback I see when working on Brave, so it’s worth detailing why I see value in Web3 extending the Web as it stands today.

Many users complain about the inclusion of Web3 features because they think it’s going to somehow degrade their overall browser experience. They often perceive it as an obstruction, despite being optional. To me, this is short-sighted, as features like the wallet, rewards, or .brave domains are opt-in. The one exception here is sponsored images in the background of new tabs, which primarily crypto-native companies have relied upon to gain exposure to Brave users and can be disabled. However, it’s not only crypto companies who’ve used sponsored images. Ford is just one company, who has also seen the value in this top of funnel marketing ad unit. Thus, complaints about “crypto bloat” confuse me. This is akin to complaining about “accessibility bloat” due to a browser having screen reader and accessibility tools. Or labeling translation features as bloat because one only views websites in their native language. Or dismissing other features as not useful simply because one doesn’t use them, while others do. After all, this is the trade-off browser developers must assess when building software used daily by billions.

However, when I break down their feedback and engage with these users, I often find they are unwilling to learn why we’re using crypto in the browser to enhance the Web experience. Usually, this is because they’ve been burned by a shitcoin or know someone who has, leading them to discard the entire concept. This is a dangerous approach in my view, akin to avoiding all tech companies after a poor investment in one, like Airbnb stock. Or, worse, condemning all credit cards because their details were stolen from one site. It’s effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Fundamentally, transacting on the web today is limited by credit card payment systems. Two examples are the Web Payments API and content creator monetization on platforms like Facebook and YouTube.

In the case of web payments, making a payment for a product or service on the web is often a bolted-on experience, not natively built on the Web Payments Request API. This is because most fintech and tech companies have worked hard to route around the standard and capture payment flows to collect percentage-based fees, keeping payments as a sticky feature within their walled gardens. The ‘Apple tax’ is a prime example, where Apple mandates in-app purchases, and other e-commerce transaction methods, then charges app developers. In cases like in-app purchases, a 30% tax was charged per use. They’ve also chosen to focus Safari’s integration on Apple Pay which puts them squarely in the middle of transactions and allows them to capture purchase behaviors of their users. I’m not certain Apple is specifically using this data, but I’d guess Google does rely on this data to sell more Ads with Google Pay. Similarly, each checkout requires supplying credit card details, trusting every site not to share them and properly protect them to prevent fraud. Meanwhile, payment processors like Stripe, credit card networks like Visa and Mastercard, along with banks, collect percentage-based fees through credit card processing agreements, taxing users a small amount for every transaction. This results in a more cumbersome and expensive experience. Furthermore, credit card payment privacy is abysmal, with purchasing behavior profiles built behind the scenes to track users via their credit card number which acts as a globally unique identifier. This is a key reason tech companies like Google, Apple, and Samsung aimed to capture the client-side payment flow with services like Google Pay, Apple Pay, and Samsung Pay. Credit card purchase data is increasingly valuable to Adtech companies, data brokers, and large e-commerce sites like Amazon for promoting new products and encouraging further purchases. Knowing purchasing habits is incredibly valuable data. Therefore, the value of an alternative method to transact with crypto is to be cheaper, more convenient, more private, and more secure. Admittedly, it isn’t this today, but Rome wasn’t built in a day and there’s many of us still improving things.

Moreover, content creators have received unfair “deals” as platforms increasingly capture user attention. Spotify is a perfect example: musicians publish there for fan discovery. However, Spotify collects most of the ad or subscription revenue, passing little value to the musicians who sustain the platform. Platforms live off of these connections between users and creators and without them they’d be the next Myspace. The situation is similar on nearly every other content creator platform reliant on ads or subscriptions, such as YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and even newer platforms like Substack and Patreon. The platform provides creators an audience through algorithmic marketing and users get algorithmic content discovery. They’re effectively a matching service to connect creators and viewers. In exchange, platforms capture the largest revenue share from the attention creators generate through engaging with their viewers. Additionally, creators are limited in monetizing their users. For example, a content creator currently cannot charge a one-time payment of $0.01 for content they generate. This is because credit card fees would exceed the product’s worth, causing the creator to lose money per transaction or lose users due to the cumbersome credit card checkout. This is why microtransactions haven’t materialized on the Web. Additionally, their user experience (UX) remains uncertain.

In summary, I see crypto’s value in transforming transactions to make interactions between buyers and sellers of content, products, or services more delightful. Even if crypto succeeds, I don’t expect it to solve all problems, nor do I expect credit card rails to disappear on the Web. However, I welcome its addition as it will force competition and innovation, rather than allowing existing networks and walled garden platforms to rest on their laurels, extracting data and fees. This is why I believe in the value of crypto on the Web. Essentially, I see crypto as the open payments network enabling this change that we didn’t get from Web Payments. Until it’s objectively a better system, however, I expect most users won’t opt-in yet, and that’s fine. Many of us see where we’re trying to take the Web to make it better. Therefore, I’m happy to continue working on crypto in the background to build a better Web, even when the grifters who scam people are making all the headlines. And I hope this helps people who don’t see the value in crypto yet to understand why it may be useful in the future to them.