The creator economy will explode in the metaverse, but not under the rule of tech giants

In his monthly crypto column, Israeli serial entrepreneur Ariel Shapiro introduces emerging technologies in the fields of crypto, decentralized finance (DeFi) and blockchain, and their role in shaping the 21st century economy.

Sources say Meta plans to take nearly 50 percent of Horizon Worlds' virtual asset sales. Faced with such high cuts, it's no surprise that independent artists and content creators have left the Metaverse entirely. Or at least from the perspective of Metaverse, no matter how excited the company is about the creator economy, it will also dissuade a considerable number of creators. If paying such a large amount of money is tax to make life better for your community, that's fine, but Meta is a business, not a charity.

Not all creative talents can live a luxurious life. Streaming services are making life harder for musicians, with insurmountable creative fatigue impacting the variety and quality of creator-driven content across multiple markets. Typically, today's creators are left chasing ever-changing monetization policies on various platforms, and getting sponsorships is no easy feat.

In theory, the emergence of the metaverse provides a new way for the creator economy to thrive, especially by creating another way for creators to make money through crypto integration and decentralized platforms. The fact that a major centralized Web2 company, such as Meta, enters the realm of the Metaverse does not mean that it welcomes and respects independent creators.

Concerns about these major players dominating the metaverse and the Web3 space are not the result of anti-corporate desperation. Instead, it has more to do with the freedom and flexibility that exists in this new creator economy. The reputation of these companies is the ultimate wake-up call for creators who sustain their creative businesses through Web2 platforms.

trouble entering the metaverse

Yes, it is indeed troublesome. While Meta blames its eye-popping fees on regulatory hurdles brought about by Apple, it's hard to see how this helps creators. It is well known that the big technology platforms do not see each other well.

Although non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have come under fire, they do offer better opportunities for creators to turn a tidy profit. While they have their flaws (how many early sales were lost to bots?), there are ways around them. Developers can attract early buyers through a democratized whitelist platform like SparkWorld, making traditional whitelists a fair basis for everyone to enjoy a fair chance in the game.

Also, seeing platform fees like Meta, we can say goodbye to price tags that actually make sense. If developers have to hand over half of the proceeds to big tech companies, you're unlikely to see more metaverse projects like BattleFly — which sells NFT battle butterflies for a very affordable price. Let's face it: no one is going to pay Gucci-level prices for something that's not only virtual, but not real Gucci.

Aside from pricing and fees, another major hurdle for the Metaverse creator economy is interoperability. Currently, the major Metaverse studios are only prioritizing interoperability in their marketing. The real developer scene is fragmented into several overbearing projects, all wanting to have a monopoly on the Metaverse and not interested in collaborating with each other.

Reshaping the structure of the metaverse

As things stand, the centralized Metaverse seems to be planning to play the crypto community’s centralized bingo card. This is a great selling point for studios that create metaverses outside of the big tech companies' vision: give independent creators the accessibility and freedom to create most of the art for you. It's that simple. You can hire 100 developers to build the backbone of your metaverse, but they'll never be as passionate as 1,000 indie fans who decide to make it their home.

While it might seem beneficial to have only a few players having an impact in the metaverse, the incompatibility of leading metaverse projects forces creators to choose sides. For example, an emerging fashion designer who is making metaverse wearables must choose between making a product for Decentraland, The Sandbox, or Horizon Worlds. All of these projects run on different engines and have their own SDKs and frameworks. It's unlikely that a designer or programmer would have the funds to create projects for all three platforms, let alone the dozens of metaverses that would pop up along the way.

Blockchain-based metaverse projects may lack meta-level brand recognition, but they can strive to provide a friendly environment with an emphasis on accessibility. While big tech companies may be slow to respond to user feedback and build bridges between worlds, the flexibility of decentralized projects can push them ahead of the centralized metaverse model.

Interoperability is no good for centralized conglomerates using the Metaverse merely as an offshoot of another company - Apple's attitude towards vendor lock-in is a good example. For others, the situation is different. When facing a giant like Meta, it makes sense to add value to someone else's product if someone else is doing the same for you. On your own, neither of you stands a chance; but together, you are each other's force multipliers. After all, the Metaverse seems infinitely profitable, but you have to be able to create content that users want to buy. The more platforms they can use for their purchases, the better.

Interoperability goes beyond development and programming to include factors such as community guidelines and monetization. Meta and Google are notoriously fickle, changing the parameters of acceptable and profitable content from time to time. Just ask any Youtuber how hard it is to start earning ad revenue from their content, let alone sustain a living off of it. Why is Big Tech changing its rules in the Metaverse?

Exorbitant fees, platform incompatibilities, and unbalanced community guidelines combine to create a perfect storm to keep content creators away from centralized Metaverse platforms. As development falters, the lack of support from independent artists will turn the centralized metaverse into a large corporate playground that lacks diversity and cultural content, making it difficult to sustainably attract users.

The Metaverse operates as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), which, for its part, can make monetization guidelines fully transparent and allow token holders to vote on how creators monetize their digital creations. With the reduction of operating expenses such as gas costs and the addition of more efficient blockchains and tokens, developers can build decentralized projects with lower user joining costs. It also creates a more engaging and inclusive environment for independent creators.

Metaverse aims to be an engaging project that brings a new era of imagination and interaction to the internet and changes the way users engage with the creative industries. A thriving creator economy is definitely possible in the Metaverse, but will never materialize if it continues down this uncoordinated path fraught with financial and operational hurdles. Ultimately, independent creators and artists should be empowered by the Metaverse, not stifled by it.

Cointelegraph Chinese is a blockchain news information platform, and the information provided only represents the author's personal opinion, has nothing to do with the position of the Cointelegraph Chinese platform, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Readers are requested to establish correct currency concepts and investment concepts, and earnestly raise risk awareness.