This is an interesting real world use case for these NFTs. And I also do understand the drive behind the rich showing off their wealth by owning NFTs, much like they do with handbags or other useless crap. But I'm still not sold on how transformative the metaverse will be. The thing with your example is that the NFT is only opening up a spot into a "real world" activity. So sure, use your NFTs to prove who you are and now you get to enjoy some benefits in the real world. But it all still comes down to the biological, real world. Maybe in the metaverse, I will be able to go to a virtual mall and browse the stores and buy some stuff, but I expect that stuff to be delivered to my house because its more than likely things I want to use, or wear, or eat. We have clearly seen the damage that Facebook has done to society, and teens specifically, with respect to their so called "online" friends. They are suffering from depression and say they don't have any real friends, even if they have thousands of "online" friends. I'm also not sure how a virtual experience will replace the thrill of a live, in-person experience. Yes, you might enjoy doing some VR stuff and browsing parts of the world, but offer to take your girlfriend on a trip around the world in VR and see what kind of reaction you get. The chick wants to travel for real and show it all off on her IG. Now maybe if you can convince me that men won't even need women anymore because virtual sex in the metaverse will be even better, then fine, we have a home run here, but I doubt we are anywhere close to a world where a guy will pick a humanoid sexual experience over the real thing. In fact, I will bet you that if this becomes a thing and women realize they can't use their sexuality to attract men anymore, it will all be shut down in a heartbeat since more and more women are running the world. So although the metaverse will I'm sure grow, Facebook clearly had to pivot because they reached the end of their growth with the FB app and IG, but the metaverse is just another extension of this same concept. The metaverse might make some things easier to do, so that will catch on, but if given the choice, most will choose for real world experiences. We are after all still biological. Now if you start implanting chips into people, or going full on Matrix style, then fine, the real world loses out. But at this point you wouldn't even need humans, nor will you have humans continue to replicate. This might all end up being deflationary for world population and that is clearly not what FB wants since this all means less users in the end.
I've also been skeptic for similar reasons although former tech colleagues have been trying to push me into the sector since they follow Facebook without doing much more than first level thinking, "FB must know what's up!". Also, who the hell wants to live in Zuckerberg's VR world? The gullible aside... The man has demonstrated that he's clearly not up to the responsibility of running what's especially a huge public space. The one true advantage I can see of a metaverse is lower barriers between crossing apps, which is arguably the case if interactions take place in a properly constructed VR interface (which by the way absolutely needs to not be a big ass headset). If so, that will strongly appeal to people's desire to seek the least path of resistance. The question is, is that enough to make the metaverse significantly larger (in user count) than e.g. WoW?
The Metaverse is some scary shit if you look at it from a larger exploitational perspective. Full disclosure: I have been trading AXS for a few months.
I do think that identities should have already become some sort of killer app for web3 but the fact that they haven't probably means they never well or the current solutions are good enough.
There's an ElliotTrades video where he read a Twitter thread from Punk 6529 on the evolution of NFT's and Metaverse and how very early we still are Anyway, from what I've read and heard and from my own experience, the tables have turned on cryptos trying to adopt the real world. The real world is now trying to adopt cryptos Food for thought For example, biggest selling point during ICO boom was to bring real world stuff of value to cryptos, i.e. tokenizing real estate and selling them as cryptos Nowadays, cryptos intrinsic value comes from the cryptos ecosystem and the real world is trying to co-opt it. Look at celebrities purchasing NFT's i.e. Stephen Curry buying a punk or a corporation like Visa purchasing a punk, like they are trying to fit in with the cool crowd, jmho. Of course, let's not forget Christie's and Sotheby's profiting from all the "NFT art craze" There were ICO's to build infrastructure that will have banking relationships so we can spend our cryptos in the real world, i.e. Crypto.com (MCO) credit card using cryptos Today, cryptos are building decentralized banking system (DeFi) aave.com, get high yields on deposits, borrow cryptos using crypto assets as collateral Real world exchanges getting hacked or shutting down to steal our cryptos, so they built decentralized exchanges, Uniswap, Pancakeswap, TraderJoe On Metaverse evolution, it's still in progress. From what I've heard and read something similar to Ready Player ONE might not be bad. The movie Free Guy is also similar I'm going to wait and see how the successful Metaverses develop before I pass judgement. I may need to be a gamer...
Depends. Cryptos for use as Web3 authentication and identification on what are still Web2 platforms, i.e. Twitter and Facebook just limit the possibilities It's the reason FB is changing to Meta. They see a future where they lose relevance Cryptos community are fighting for open metaverses rather than closed ones where the incumbents, i.e. FB, still have the most control FB has billions of $, but cryptos community have the passion and the experience. As someone who does not have a FB account, I know I'll be staying as far away as possible to anything associated with Meta In the same way open internet obliterated the closed networks, i.e. Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, and Intranets
Open internet was subsidized worldwide though. No government in their right mind is going to subsidize metaverse.
I'm with you on the crypto front, and most of your reply is about crypto, so no need to convince me there. But with the metaverse, outside of gaming perhaps, I don't see how someone will spend hours there every day. But sure, its a work in progress.
Just came across this interesting thing and I can see how it could work: https://vulcanforgedco.medium.com/vulcanverse-land-101-bd38f56e8251 It appears to be nothing but an add on for game revenue. Facebook might be the conduit, but if I were a game developer, this is similar to skins and no one uses Facebook as a conduit for skins. Imagine selling parts of your world to let people do with as they wish. Imagine a Fortnite with parts of the map up for sale. Facebook needs to convince gaming companies somehow that it is beneficial to use their conduit vs a proprietary one.