All right, here goes nothing.

I came to the conclusion that what you said didn't make much sense after you called Librewolf prehardened Firefox, which—while not a completely alien assertion—is not exactly very accurate as I explained in my previous comment.

What's worse though is that you continue making exotic assertions like the hide in the crowd + randomization theory without backing them up with anything, while simultaneously asking for arguments(?) and evidence supporting my relatively straightforward and popular position--both of which I have presented very clearly in my previous comments by the way.

What you fail to deliver in the meantime are explanations as to A) how Brave's approach is different or unique compared to anything that any hardened/forked/otherwise enhanced readily available Firefox could offer and B) why Brave's particular approach to privacy is then also objectively better than the multiple different approaches that various Firefox configs and forks offer.

But wait, I'm not done yet. You also fail to explain why you consider Mullvad Browser or Tor to be "completely different things" as you suggested just now. Brave is the best Chromium based thing out there in terms of privacy, shouldn't it then be fair to match it against the best of Firefox' class? Or is it because Tor Browser targets a very specific user base and is less fit for your average every-day surfing and that's why you think the comparison isn't sound. In that case I bear bad news about your deep well of knowledge on web browsers, because Mullvad Browser is based on Tor Browser but doesn't require any overlay network of any kind in order to function properly.

And since engaging with you has not yet led to anything of value, I will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further unless this changes.