The creator economy will explode in the Metaverse, but not under Big Tech’s regime

In her monthly crypto technology column, Israeli serial entrepreneur Ariel Shapira covers emerging technologies in crypto, decentralized finance (DeFi) and blockchain space, as well as her role in shaping the economy in the 21st century.

With the news that Meta plans to reduce virtual asset sales by almost 50% at Horizon Worlds, it won’t come as a surprise that artists and independent content creators are rejecting Metaverse altogether. Or at least from the Meta rendition, no matter how excited the company is about the creator’s economy. This is one of those things to pay for when taxes get better for your community, but Meta is a business, not a charity.

And it’s not like your average creative type lives on high. Streaming services have made life more difficult for musicians, and unresolved creative fatigue is affecting the variety and quality of content that creators are pushing in multiple markets. Sometimes, the creators now still follow a constant monetization policy on various platforms, and getting sponsorships is also not running in the park.

In theory, the advent of the Metaverse offers a new way for the creator economy to evolve, especially with crypto integration and decentralized platforms creating alternative paths for creators to make money. In fact, the superiority of major centralized Web2 companies, like Meta, in the Metaverse space doesn’t exactly indicate a good welcome for independent creators.

related: Letter to Zuckerberg: The Metaverse is not what you think

Concerns about these major players dominating the Metaverse and Web3 spaces are not the result of anti-corporate hands; rather, it has more to do with the freedom and flexibility that will exist in the economy of these new creators. For creators who maintain their creative business through any major Web2 platform, the company’s reputation is a major build call.

The complexity of entering the Metaverse

Yes, it’s a hassle. Although Meta justifies the inconvenient cost by turning its mistakes into regulatory blocks brought in by Apple, it’s hard to see how it can help the creators. The Big Tech platform isn’t the biggest fan of one another – we know very well.

For all the nonfungible flak tokens (NFTs) earned, they offer the creators the opportunity to make good profits. Even if they have their own flaws (how many initial sales are captured by bots?), There are ways they can do that. Creators can get early buyers through democratized whitelisting platforms like SparkWorld, putting traditional whitelisting in a fair position where everyone gets a fair picture of the game.

Furthermore, with the cost of a platform like Meta, we can say goodbye to the right price tag. If the creators had to hand over half of their revenue to a Big Tech company, you wouldn’t see many Metaverse projects like BattleFly, which sells NFT combat butterflies at an affordable price. And let’s be real: No one is going to pay a Gucci -level price for something that is not only real but also not Gucci.

Beyond price and cost, another major obstacle to the economy of Metaverse creators is interoperability. As it stands, major Metaverse studios only prioritize interoperability in marketing. The real developer scene is divided between a number of domineering projects all seeking to have a Metaverse monopoly, with little interest in collaborating with each other.

related: Metaverse: A Brave New World Mark Zuckerberg

Reshaping the Metaverse fabric

As of now, the centralized Metaverse seems to want to eliminate the crypto community’s centralized bingo card. This makes it a great selling point for studios that create Metaverse outside of the Big Tech area: It gives accessibility and freedom to independent creators, and they’ll do a lot of the work for you. It’s as simple as that. You can hire 100 developers to build your Metaverse backbone, but it won’t be as enthusiastic as the 1,000 independent fans who decided to make it home.

Though it is only useful if some players have influence in the Metaverse, it does not suit the winning Metaverse project forcing the creators to choose sides. For example, fashion designers who are developing creating Metaverse wearables have to choose between creating products for Decentraland, The Sandbox or Horizon Worlds. All of these projects run on different machines and have their own software development kits and frameworks for navigation. It’s not possible for a designer or programmer to have the ability to create projects for all three of these platforms, there aren’t dozens of metaverses popping up along the way.

related: The best is yet to come: What’s next for the blockchain and the creator economy

Blockchain -based Metaverse projects may not have Meta -level brand recognition, but they can strive to provide a welcoming environment that emphasizes accessibility. While Big Tech can be slow to respond to user feedback and create bridges between the worlds, the agility of decentralized projects can drive a centralized Metaverse model.

For a centralized conglomerate that uses Metaverse as another corporate arm, interoperability is useless – Apple’s penchant for lock -in vendors should tell you that. For others, the story is different. When faced with a giant like Meta, it can certainly add value to a product made by someone else if it does the same thing for you. On its own, not one of you stands a chance; but together, you power multipliers one another. After all, Metaverse seems infinitely monetizable, but you need to be able to make users want to buy. And the more platforms you can use to buy, the better.

Interoperability beyond development and programming also includes factors such as community guidelines and monetization. Meta and Google are very popular and inconsistent with changing the parameters of acceptable and monetized content. Just ask YouTubers how difficult it is to start making advertising revenue on that content, let alone continue to support themselves. Why would Big Tech change the rule book in the Metaverse?

Excessive costs, inconsistent platforms and uneven community guidelines are the perfect storm for content creators to withdraw from the centralized Metaverse platform. As development progresses, the lack of support from independent artists will result in the centralized Metaverse becoming a megacorporate playground that lacks the variety or culture that can appeal to users.

Metaverse that operates as a decentralized autonomous organization, for its part, can be transparent with its monetization guidelines and allow token holders to choose how creators can monetize their digital work. And because operational costs like reduced gas costs and more efficient blockchain and tokens join, developers can build decentralized projects that are cheaper for users. This also creates a more inviting and inclusive environment for independent creators.

Metaverse is intended to be a fun project that brings a new era of imagination and interaction to the internet and changes the way users approach the creative industry. A thriving creator economy is indeed possible in the Metaverse, but if development continues down a path that is not conducive to financial and operational constraints, such an economy will not happen. Ultimately, independent creators and artists should feel their power with the Metaverse concept, not be distracted.

This article does not contain any investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should do their own research when making a decision.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.