A model at odds; reviewing Brave’s token economics

Takeaways

  • Brave is a standout among crypto projects from the ICO era, when considering the adoption it has managed to drive.

  • The MAU numbers are still low, when compared to other browser products.

  • BAT, the native protocol asset, only finds utility as a payment token, which dampens Braves adoptability.

  • While the adoption numbers are encouraging, more users doesn't necessarily translate into more ad spend, as Brave's core value proposition is ad-blocking.

  • The ads shown on Brave Rewards are mostly of poor quality and still very crypto specific. Better quality ads and better payouts to users (currently $0.5 pcm) will improve adoption.


Brave is one of the breakout crypto-friendly products to come out of the 2017 ICO boom. The browser is a privacy-first product, offshoot of Mozilla Firefox and fork of Chromium, powered by a cryptoeconomic layer in the back end. Instead of a traditional advertising model, Brave shares 70% of the ad revenue generated, with users, in the form of Basic Attention Tokens (BAT). Whether a user is exposed to ads or not, is up to the their discretion.

Adoption

Recently, the browser surpassed 8M MAU, a YoY growth rate of 166%. While the absolute figures pale compared to Chrome's 3B users, they are certainly outstanding in a crypto context. If the assumption that internet users across the world will increasingly keep becoming privacy sensitive holds true, then a window of opportunity opens up for Brave. On the browser end, Brave is faster than Chrome, while its integration with Duckduckgo on the search engine layer, boosts its privacy preserving value proposition.

Whether or not Brave is an attractive investable opportunity through BAT, largely depends on BAT's token economics. BAT is the native network token that is primarily used as a payment token, in the exchange for attention between advertisers and users. While an ad-blocking browser by default, in Brave users are presented with the option to share their data with advertisers, and see ads in exchange for BAT.

1.5B tokens were issued and distributed over 85% to investors and the wider market - a big long term positive in my book. Until further notice, there will never be any inflation - also a big net positive. BAT tokens have no further intended utility than the payment function described above - a feature I perceive as a net negative.

The numbers of publishers signing up to the Brave ecosystem are steadily increasing. The more publishers there are on the platform, the more attention there is on the platform and thus the more attractive it will be for advertisers to use Brave instead of competing ad networks. In order to do that, advertisers will be required to build up BAT reserves to pay users with.

Over the long term, advertisers would have to engage in some form of reserve management on their BAT holdings, in order to lock down a best price in terms of USD, and optimize their cost basis.

The model is already getting some traction, most of which comes from the crypto-native community. The quality of ads that Brave shows is relatively low, with the majority of the advertised brands being VPN and exchange products. Unsurprising - given the type of user that has become an early Brave adopter, but for the product to become stickier, I feel we would have to see better quality advertising.

Screenshot 2019-10-22 at 17.10.37.png

Brave token economics from the ground-up

Earlier on, I mentioned that I see BAT's utility as * only * a payment token, as a net negative. The reason why, is that it introduces a lot of overhead for advertisers. There is virtually no reason for merchants to adopt a highly unstable currency equivalent as means of payment in order to reach audiences, except perhaps for if they are long the platform itself - in which case the presumption becomes that every merchant will wear an investor hat. Even then, the case for pure payment tokens is grim as the aforementioned adoption mechanism is a zero-sum game.

If the majority of token economy participants decide to just build up reserves of the native payment token, you would have to assume that their involvement in the Brave ecosystem will not drive the majority of their business, so long as running costs cannot be covered using said token without exchanging it for fiat. In itself, that limits the addressable market.

Now, if the majority of participants decide to not be exposed to volatility and sell down on their token denominated income immediately upon receiving it, then everybody else is incentivised to do so - or be left holding the bag. If we agree that this dynamic is true, then it creates the perfect conditions for a race to the bottom.

The final argument that could work in Brave's favour, would be that the product will be so irresistible and as such attract so many users, that it will be impossible for advertisers to ignore it.

This could be the case for Brave, only it can't, as long as its core value proposition is - quite literally - blocking ads.

I have been using Brave with the Rewards feature on for 3 months now as an experiment and earned 5.9 BAT thus far, which amount to $0.5 pcm at current prices. In western world standards this is inconsequential. Personally, I would rather pay 3x as much to not have to bear with ads.

It’s neither stable, nor volatile - what is it?

For almost 2 years now, BAT's price has ranged between $0.15 and $0.50, and while that makes a good case for relative stability enforced by market forces, it certainly is not as good as a stablecoin's, while it doesn't seem to have the potential for a moonshot either.

Given this PA history, one would expect those advertisers that decide to build BAT reserves to drive up the price to ~$0.5, at which point cyclical sellers would be triggered and they would drive the price down again. Conversely, at prices near the $0.15 level, utility seekers would start buying up reserves again. Without a systematic mechanism to break the cycle, I could see it just endlessly repeating. Good for the speculator that is interested in taking advantage of that cyclicality, but bad for almost everyone else.

A better model would be one predicated on some sort of stablecoin, where BAT would be the protocol asset that would give validators that would stake it access to ledger fess. We are increasingly seeing traction in the work token space, with Terra's dual token model providing for a good example. More on that, in a future post.

Telegram; a sleeping giant awakens

The Telegram Open Network (TON), is the most eagerly anticipated Mainnet launch in 2019 - and not without reason. TON has conjured up the 2nd largest fundraising effort in crypto, second only to that of EOS, and promises to launch a 5th generation blockchain that introduces its native asset, the Gram, as a payments tool to approximately 250 million active users of the Telegram Messenger.

But not all appears to be rosy over at Telegram HQ. The project is late in its roadmap by more than one year, and has only recently released a public Testnet, with all too many variables being currently classified under “unknown”. TON is faced with a dire dilemma; either deliver a working Mainnet by the 31st of October, or return capital to investors.

The small ecosystem around TON is currently seeing a flurry of activity as the deadline approaches fast, with mystery abound as the core developer team continues to keep a very low profile. Will the network launch in time? Will it be sufficiently decentralized? Will it attract the necessary developer interest to populate the network with applications?

In this report, I provide answers to above questions - and many more, in what is possibly the most comprehensive piece of research on all-things TON.

Token value accrual models; the good, the bad and the ugly

It happens again and again - in 2017, amidst the monumental bull run, it was commonplace for crypto pundits to exalt the properties of various token models. Most of you that were around in that time, will remember.

Conversely, now that prices have collapsed, often the very same pundits have been quick to switch sides, and bang the "tokens are worthless" drum. 

It seems fairly obvious to me that there is a lot of System 1 thinking at play here - most likely attributable to a mix of anchoring and bandwagon effects, and a positive feedback loop between price action and sentiment.

While many criticisms of token models have value, I suspect that we cannot come to conclusive arguments about value accrual just yet - only speculation. But also, until we have a suite of repeatable business and token models (like we do in the off-chain world), it is unlikely that we'll get to see what lies on the other end of the inflexion point in the adoption curve.

So, before we move on, cheers to the unsung heroes that are experimenting with all kinds of different models in honesty and good faith; without them, we will probably never find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Now, given that we have a lot more information about what works and what doesn't compared to a couple of years ago, it's worth recapping how the different narratives on token value accrual have developed over time.

For reference, I am borrowing the classification below from Fabric Ventures to help frame the discussion.

Screenshot 2019-03-04 at 10.27.00.png

After multiple boom and bust cycles, this is what I feel we know collectively about value capture in token economies. This is by no means conclusive, but rather a crutch in navigating a noisy landscape. If you have any thoughts on the classifications above, I'd love to hear them.

Screenshot 2019-03-04 at 10.27.12.png

If this appears to be too small, you can access the table here too.

At this point I wanted to note a few things, regarding the learnings we can take from this; (i) hybrid models seem like they have a lot of potential - combining properties artfully only widens the potential SAM, as a token can be different things to different stakeholders , (ii) taxi-medallion-like access tokens are the flavour du jour when it comes to narratives, but it might just hold ground, (iii) utility-come-payment tokens are dead in the water, as they introduce hurdles to adoption and that (iv) the jury is very much still out on governance tokens.

On token economies as an evolution of multi-layered platforms

Key takeaways of today's Daily:

  • Token economies have the potential to become the next evolution of multi-sided platforms.

  • Token based exchange among all parties involved in token economies, is a multiplier to the overall value of the token economy. 

  • Fragmentation leads to loss of the multiplier effect and sub-optimal incentives for the supply/infrastructure side.

Lately, I've been doing some thinking on token economies. In today's newsletter, I'll try to set the foundations for those thoughts as succinctly as I can. At a very high level, we can make a compelling case for token economies being the next evolution of multi-layered platforms, where multiple markets collide into a compelling ecosystem, bound by a quasi-sovereign currency for the micro-economy.

In that token economy, you have multiple parties involved, which can be distinguished in 3 main groups; the creator of the blockchain - the foundation that provides with the initial protocol as well as the follower contributors, the marketplace - where content creators and consumers meet to exchange goods and services, and the infrastructure providers - the miners, validators and other network service providers that secure the whole thing. I've taken my best shot (in the short time between last night and today) to map out how the flows in a well functioning token economy might work, and presenting you with it below;

Screenshot+2018-12-20+at+10.17.06.png

The areas above represent the different groups and within them the different parties that bring value to the ecosystem. Notice that I have given roughly 80% of the notional value contribution (area size) to the consumers. They are the ones that eventually will bring the majority of the value ad to the ecosystem, allowing it to absorb value from the world outside it (via fiat money or other tokens - foreign investment of sorts) and ultimately enter maturity. The dark arrows represent the token flows, and the white represent the fiat flows (subject to revision). I think that an important underlying implication of those flows is that as in traditional economies, there is a multiplier effect to the value created once all activity on the ecosystem is facilitated by the native token. The more it circulates between all parties, the higher its value should be. Further, the more consumers come on the ecosystem the more fiat gets absorbed by the token economy and thus the token value inflates. Let's now briefly explore what happens when you allow fiat flows on the marketplace side of the ecosystem.

AA.png

In a nutshell, the ecosystem becomes fragmented and as such the potential token value diminishes. Now does that mean that it will not be valuable at all? The answer here is probably no, as there are still flows between the infrastructure side and the creators on the marketplace side. However, those flows are smaller than in the case with consumer participation, the token value is capped and thus sub-optimal incentives are produced for the infrastructure side of the ecosystem. Ultimately, the multiplier effect never kicks in, as the main fiat bridge to the token economy is burned, and instead of a token economy, our thought experiment degrades to a platform.

In this case, the big question is whether the said token flows will produce strong enough incentives for the infrastructure side to join the platform in a meaningful way and stay there for the long haul...