I’ve been watching the metaverse land rush with a mix of fascination and genuine concern. People are piling into virtual “London” and virtual “Manhattan” like they’re getting in early on actual property — and I think most of them are making a fundamental mistake.
Let me break down why.
The Foot Traffic Problem
Here’s the thing about real estate in the physical world — location matters because of foot traffic. A shop on Oxford Street is valuable because millions of people WALK past it every year. That foot traffic took centuries of urban development, infrastructure, culture, and economic activity to create.
Now someone’s selling you a plot in metaverse “London” and the pitch is basically: London is valuable in the real world, so it’ll be valuable in the virtual world too.
But why? Why would virtual London have foot traffic before it has anything worth visiting? The foot traffic is what makes it valuable — not the name. You’re buying a name on a map that nobody’s visiting yet.
I Could Build Rob-London Tomorrow
This is the part that really gets me. I could — theoretically — buy an area the size of London in the wastelands of one of these platforms, develop an even MORE fun version of London that I own 100% of, and ultimately attract more visitors because it’s just cooler. Maybe less historically accurate, maybe more — doesn’t matter. If Rob-London has better experiences, better shops, better events, that’s where people go.
And here’s the kicker: travel in the metaverse is INSTANT. You’re not commuting. You’re not stuck in traffic on the M25. You could be shopping in Rob-London, then port instantly to someone else’s London, then jump to the fourth iteration of virtual Paris to buy the shoes everyone’s talking about for your avatar.
Geography doesn’t create friction in the metaverse. Which means geography doesn’t create value the way it does in our world.
The Portability Illusion
A lot of people buying metaverse land think they’re buying something blockchain-secured and therefore somehow universal. Here’s the reality — you CANNOT port your London land from one metaverse into another metaverse’s London. Your NFT deed is valid in exactly one platform.
And how many metaverses are there now? Hundreds. Each one could have a London if they don’t already. Each one is a separate universe with separate rules, separate economies, and separate user bases.
The blockchain element is — and I’ll be pretty direct here — zero functional difference from what came before. It’s all marketing. The only thing blockchain adds is a verifiable receipt for your purchase on a specific platform. It doesn’t make that platform the winner. It doesn’t make your land transferable. It doesn’t create scarcity across the metaverse landscape.
We’ve Seen This Before
I remember SecondLife nearly a decade ago when this all first started happening. People were buying virtual land, brands were setting up virtual storefronts, and there was genuine excitement about virtual real estate as an asset class.
The only difference between then and now is that this time the developers are linking your purchase to blockchain. Which, as I said, is zero difference and all marketing. The fundamental dynamics haven’t changed. Virtual land is valuable when and only when people show up — and people show up for experiences, not addresses.
There Will Be No Scarcity Until There’s a Winner
This is probably my most important point. There’s no need for scarcity of any land or goods until a winner emerges from the crowded metaverse playing field — and that winner imposes an in-experience coded scarcity.
Right now we’re in the “hundreds of competing platforms” phase. Buying premium land in any single one of them is a bet that THIS platform will be the one that wins. And the land-parking investors who are snapping up virtual Marylebone and virtual Mayfair are making that bet based on name recognition from the physical world rather than any fundamental analysis of which platform will actually attract users.
From a coding and experience perspective, everything I’m describing — instant travel, competing worlds, better-than-real recreations — is not just possible, it’s highly probable. The technical barriers are low. The creative possibilities are essentially unlimited.
The Takeaway
I’m not saying the metaverse isn’t going to be massive — I think it will be. The Web Summit in Lisbon recently had a huge portion of companies focused purely on NFTs and metaverse development. The trend is real. The opportunities to generate revenue — renting buildings, charging admission, selling advertising space — are genuinely endless.
But buying land BEFORE foot traffic exists, in a platform that may or may not win, based on a name borrowed from the physical world? That’s not investing. That’s speculation dressed up in real estate language.
Wait for the foot traffic. Watch for the winner. Then make your move.
