While blockchain in itself is confusing enough, the idea of virtual real estate having real underlying value is mind-boggling to me. Isn't the concept of real estate as an asset grounded in scarcity and necessity? 🧵 A thread:
[1/8]
[1/8]
When #MAANG employees drive up rent in the city and push out the poor, there are factors like commute time and energy that avatars on #decentraland are not subject to.
[2/8]
[2/8]
Virtual communities do not require proximity to thrive. Ironically, the removal of distance as a barrier is one of the primary offerings of the metaverse. We might be losing the 𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘵 here (sorry)
[3/8]
[3/8]
Why 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁 I have my metaverse party/meeting/neighborhood in another portion of an unlimited metaverse real estate? Artificially scarce assets are unlikely to have the same price trajectory as a genuinely scarce one, like land.
[4/8]
[4/8]
@pbrody puts it succinctly - it's likely to result in "very large numbers of small communities with modest asset prices, not small numbers of big communities with high prices":
coindesk.com/layer2/2022/01…
[5/8]
coindesk.com/layer2/2022/01…
[5/8]
I'm not suggesting it is an entirely useless exercise. But buying 'land' in the metaverse is a misnomer at the minimum. It's closer to buying a chatroom, a domain name, or a subreddit than it is to buying land.
[6/8]
[6/8]
Far too many of us are enamored by the idea of #metaverse to not question it. Maybe it's turned into an echo chamber divided into two factions of (i) the enthusiasts and (ii) those convinced there's more to it than they can currently comprehend.
[7/8]
[7/8]
But sometimes, there's actually nothing more to it than meets the eye. I'm curious, what do @VitalikButerin and @naval think about this?
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading.
[8/8]
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading.
[8/8]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
