Companies like to release updates and build things for their customers. This is undeniable in the world of software. New features and upgrades are key reasons why customers stick around.

In the realm of payments, security, and antifragile systems, the idea of building everything in-house provides a paradox:

Everything being built in-house does not build trust; it actually removes trust and provides an opportunity for verification to be exploited at the expense of trust.

The only way to enhance verifiability without basing the verification on “trust” is by using external entities to deploy the verification test. This system of triangulated verification is time-tested and is actually how the world operates:

Supplement companies that want to tell athletes that they do not have banned substances rely on external testing facilities, most commonly NSF Certified for Sport®, to verify their claims.

No car manufacturer relies on internal data only when discussing how safe their vehicles are. They use external ranking systems to market how family-friendly their safety metrics are.

Athletes looking to make the jump from college to the pros go through standardized testing measurements with specific benchmarks in mind.

When you are paying someone new with Venmo, Venmo directs you to enter the last 4 digits of the recipient’s phone number to make sure you are paying the right person.

People don’t bring homemade identification to the airport; security requires a government-issued issued valid form of identification to proceed.

There are countless more examples in society where the method of verification used comes from an external source—not just another check within the same company or software stack.

The reasoning comes down to the fact that an external verifying source carries more weight than an internal vote of confidence. Any customer will always defer to an external review rather than an internal statement of truth.

Branta is the external reviewer for transactions. Branta verifies that the address you are intending to send Bitcoin to is, or isn’t, the address you are intending to send. Branta does this with no code injections, no logins, analytics, downloads, and unnecessary friction for your customer.

Branta aims to replace trust-based systems with the power of third-party verification. In the world of Bitcoin transactions, the list below presents scenarios that are trust-filled actions:

An exchange cannot verify that the address you see on your screen is a real address belonging to the same exchange

A merchant cannot verify that the address you see on your screen is a real address belonging to the same merchant.

By layering Branta into either of the above examples, there would be a method of triangulated security, ensuring that where you are sending bitcoin is truly where you intend it to go.

With the addition of another layer of security, customers and users can rely less on trust-based systems and act with more security, knowing they are replacing trust-based systems with verification-based practices. This methodology isn’t foreign to digital currencies. Multi-Sig Quorums and Multi-Institutional Custody options leverage this same underlying idea.

Adding fortified verification while not relying on trust should be the basic standard required. Branta is the extra layer of verification that is adjunct to any internal mechanisms that prioritize trust at the expense of verification.

Branta acts as an unbiased stamp of approval that allows customers, clients, and corporations to rest easy at night knowing their transactions are protected with an extra layer of security.

Branta is unopinionated and operates with the only goal to verify a transaction address is, or isn’t, what they say to be.

“Trusted third parties are security holes” only when trust is the basis. Third-party verification, which operates outside the bounds of trust-filled systems, makes your operations more antifragile.