In web3, brands and creators love to “future-signal” how forward thinking and innovative they are. To some degree, a substantial amount of the progress stems from the desire to “future-flex (tm).” Currently, the best way to way to gesture that you’re at the tip of the technological spear is to declare that you’re “building a metaverse.” Does this genuflection appeal to anyone or is it void of any sincere deliverables?

This week, I shared a tweet from @0x_shake breaking down metrics from two of the biggest metaverse platforms, Decentraland and The Sandbox. According to Messari, each of these platforms tout +$1 billion valuations. According to DappRadar, on Oct. 5, 2022, Decentraland had 38 active users during a 24 hour period, while The Sandbox boasted ~500 daily users during the same period. These numbers indicate a distinct lack of product market fit to these open-ended worlds.

There’s some serious irony in the fact that a conventional neighborhood pizzeria has more daily users than these metaverse behemoths with astounding valuations. To be clear, according to Coindesk, a daily active user is defined as a unique address interacting with the platform’s smart contracts. For example, logging onto The Sandbox or Decentraland to make a purchase with SAND or MANA, each platform’s respective native utility token, is counted as an “active use.”

So why is there no big capital flowing into Joe’s Pizza? Can’t they exclusively start accepting SOL? Don’t they have the same traffic and attention that the Decentraland has? Is the future of pizza not attractive enough for a16z?

The moral of “The Tale of Joe’s Pizza” is that open-ended metaverses that fail to provide incentive don’t see returning customers. Each of these platforms calculate a higher number of users which are dubbed as tourists or spectators, just having a look but not engaging in any significant way. It’s as if Joe’s was located on Broadway, allowing all customers to use the bathroom, but not requiring they purchase or interact with anyone while in attendance. It’s nice to provide, but it’s not a viable business.

According to DappRadar, play-to-earn game Axie Infinity is also valued at +$1 billion and boasts 22,000 daily users. The only glaring difference is that Axie provides an in game marketplace and game to participate in. The repeated benefit to the user is clear in the metrics and displays the unmistakable need to provide attendees with echoed potential and necessary transactions.

The appetite from brands and creators to pioneer this new world is often sincere but lacks a balanced perspective of expectations and assemblage. There is no restless audience waiting for you in the metaverse. Communities still need to be built, reached, or migrated. The metaverse has the potential to unlock new avenues and revenues but not without a bridge to reality.

In web3, brands and creators love to “future-signal” how forward thinking and innovative they are. To some degree, a substantial amount of the progress stems from the desire to “future-flex (tm).” Currently, the best way to way to gesture that you’re at the tip of the technological spear is to declare that you’re “building a metaverse.” Does this genuflection appeal to anyone or is it void of any sincere deliverables?

This week, I shared a tweet from @0x_shake breaking down metrics from two of the biggest metaverse platforms, Decentraland and The Sandbox. According to Messari, each of these platforms tout +$1 billion valuations. According to DappRadar, on Oct. 5, 2022, Decentraland had 38 active users during a 24 hour period, while The Sandbox boasted ~500 daily users during the same period. These numbers indicate a distinct lack of product market fit to these open-ended worlds.

There’s some serious irony in the fact that a conventional neighborhood pizzeria has more daily users than these metaverse behemoths with astounding valuations. To be clear, according to Coindesk, a daily active user is defined as a unique address interacting with the platform’s smart contracts. For example, logging onto The Sandbox or Decentraland to make a purchase with SAND or MANA, each platform’s respective native utility token, is counted as an “active use.”

So why is there no big capital flowing into Joe’s Pizza? Can’t they exclusively start accepting SOL? Don’t they have the same traffic and attention that the Decentraland has? Is the future of pizza not attractive enough for a16z?

The moral of “The Tale of Joe’s Pizza” is that open-ended metaverses that fail to provide incentive don’t see returning customers. Each of these platforms calculate a higher number of users which are dubbed as tourists or spectators, just having a look but not engaging in any significant way. It’s as if Joe’s was located on Broadway, allowing all customers to use the bathroom, but not requiring they purchase or interact with anyone while in attendance. It’s nice to provide, but it’s not a viable business.

According to DappRadar, play-to-earn game Axie Infinity is also valued at +$1 billion and boasts 22,000 daily users. The only glaring difference is that Axie provides an in game marketplace and game to participate in. The repeated benefit to the user is clear in the metrics and displays the unmistakable need to provide attendees with echoed potential and necessary transactions.

The appetite from brands and creators to pioneer this new world is often sincere but lacks a balanced perspective of expectations and assemblage. There is no restless audience waiting for you in the metaverse. Communities still need to be built, reached, or migrated. The metaverse has the potential to unlock new avenues and revenues but not without a bridge to reality.