Thanks for the reply @19eddyjohn75, and the info about Uphold. I’ve just spent 20mins trying to understand what uphold are and best I can tell from their vague ‘We are the internet of money’ website is that they are a crypto bank - i.e. full custody of their customer’s assets. If that is the sybil prevention Brave are using then I don’t see any case for BAT having any value as a decentralised asset.
Regarding your point about people moving away from thinking of companies controlling the tokens, so we don’t need to worry about the health of the company. While in theory I agree (eg, MaidSafe is a company releasing FLOSS which we have all entrusted to do so well through a tokenised crowdfund) I don’t see Brave as being part of that ideology. Brave are not fully open source, their security model depends on some secret practices which they are not willing to discuss in the open. That is the classic corporate model and their tokens are vulnerable to company bankruptcy.
MaidSafeCoin is also almost completely centralised but mitigated through their materials being entirely open to the public. Consider PARSEC though, no one was expecting that, it wasn’t explicitly on the road map and it just popped up to solve some problems and along we move. While I applaud the progress it isn’t demonstrative of the community being in control of anything. As a MaidSafeCoin holder I consider my risk to be a measure of the health of the company. However, the SAFENetwork, once launched will be decentralised and well insulated from the fate of the MaidSafe company. Brave is not like this model, their launched product and token is bound to the fate of the mother company.