Metaverse = Second Life + Oculus
I followed the whole story of Zuckerberg who intends to put his companies in a holding called "Meta" (as "Metadata", but also "Metaverse"), and in itself it seems to me too financial a maneuver for the advertising it has had.
Sign it's a red herring. After all, even Google has put all its companies under the Alphabet umbrella, to avoid antitrust, but no one has ever wondered “what the hell does Alphabet mean”?
Zuckerberg is a wizard of distraction, and he wanted to make believe that this "Meta" is a concrete concept that he would like to pass, so as to make you believe that Facebook is the past and today he is a new man.
The problem is not even the "Metaverse" and this absolute novelty. I think I explained that every twenty years old technologies come back with a different name, more powerful computers and blowjobs to the "creatives" who invented these things.
Good.
What happened 20 years ago? Second Life happened. And what happened 40 years ago? It happened the MMORPGs. And 60 years ago? The common Hippies.
What do these three things have in common?
The idea of building a Shangri-La somewhere where you can live in peace and love, undisturbed by the evil and worldly society.
But let's go to the last case: Second Life. Second Life was (actually still exists) a virtual reality system (surprisingly well functioning for the times) in which you arrived, created a second cool personality, and then you could "do" "things" with others " people ”, ie with other avatars.
Let's be clear, in itself it was an interesting experiment, in the sense that we understood what Americans dreamed of: losing weight, rejuvenating, going to the gym, going to parties, buying their sexual organs, shopping again, etc.
For those who weren't there, this kind of videogame without any particular challenge other than being there and "socializing".
And what do I see when I see that Zuckerberg dreams of having BILLIONS of people inside another gigantic SecondLife, reinforced by Oculus, that is, in a completely immersive way.
However, the fleeting experience of Secondlife teaches precisely why this is all crap.
Secondlife appeared at a time when people started talking about "Web 2.0", and filled the newspapers like Wired with people who said "here, Secondlife is web 3.0 because it is in 3D".
(The web 4.0 is called the body of quaternions, according to the same logic).
Anyway, it generated a lot of crap. Political parties opened virtual offices and held virtual rallies (if I remember correctly it was Di Pietro), universities tried to give us lessons, some supermarkets tried to sell us real things, and everything deflated when the social networks as we know them today arrived, that is a web interface to a BBS (Facebook) and a web interface to IRC (twitter). All new, brilliant stuff.
But why do people abandon SecondLife? The first reason was the slowness, which today should be resolved. The second was that few graphics cards of the period supported it. This too shouldn't be a problem today.
But the big problem was that almost immediately he entered that state that we "old men" of the internet call "eternal september".
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
What does it mean? It means that as long as there is talk of an elite minority capable of self-governing, these alternative worlds are worlds and they are alternative.
But when "the people" arrives, that is "the mass", that is, I repeat "the people", the people do what the people are:
If you think about it, this is what has already happened to Facebook, with the conscious awareness of Facebook, which instigates the vandalism of public discourse to make money.
Except that it would happen in 3D and that it would happen in an obvious way, because when you put the images if something sucks you can see it.
As seen in Second Life: at some point it began to look so much like the hypercompetitive, quantitative and puritanical sewer that is the US, that people stopped using it under the promise of other social networks to meet "real" people or " the people in your life ". But the girl below is not "the person of your life": if you know her, comparing the avatar to reality makes her ridiculous when not pathetic.
If you don't know her, she's probably a truck driver from Kansas.
Not for nothing SecondLife was a meteor that lasted relatively little, if compared with the novelty it represented.
The second point is that having equipment capable of making something like this work WELL, what young people will do is use it to PLAY. I mean, if we exclude Karen the bitchy whore, who else wants to spend her time taking selfies like this?
I mean, do you have a thing that you can play Call of Duty, Fortnite and all with, and are you taking selfies in a place that doesn't exist but looks like the boring places that exist?
First point: The "metaverse" will not attract young people because video games would destroy it in fierce competition.
Second point: even if young people went there, at the first landing of Trumpians, neo-fascists, leaguers & co, they would leave.
Third point: seniors are technophile enough to use Facebook and send Lady Diana's good morning, but not to use Oculus & Co.
Who remains as the reference customer of the "Metaverse"?
Seriously?
Let's face it: probably Zuckerbeg will give you something like Second Life (while the original one is still alive, albeit sparsely populated), it will be in fashion for some time, and then the long tail will remain. (as for Second Life).
But with this trick, he distracted you from the catastrophic mass of problems he has, and the fact that everyone is realizing how much he has helped minorities of thugs vandalize public discourse.
If I were you, I would NOT invest my savings in “Meta” shares. Facebook, like any historical phenomenon, has a life cycle, a moment of growth, one of stagnation, and one of decline.
And this is not the best time.