When your day job keeps you busy for 40+ hours per week, it’s hard to take on new tasks or pay attention to new initiatives. But one thing 2020 taught us is that the digital initiative doesn’t take vacation days. So when enabling technologies and platforms like the metaverse come around, banks and fintechs need to pay attention.

First, let’s look at what the metaverse is and what it is not. You can think of the metaverse as immersive, collaborative internet. In some respects, the metaverse is already here. Users are already collaborating with each other on multiple platforms, and alternate realities– whether in 2D or 3D– have been around for decades. However, though the metaverse will be accessible via virtual reality, it is not the same as virtual reality.

The metaverse is at an early stage and is still not well defined. Despite this, banks and fintechs still need to be paying attention. Here’s why.

It’s not the first time fintech has tried to embrace a different reality

In 2014, many fintechs and even some established financial services companies launched mixed reality experiences in the form of Google Glass, which was released to the public in May of 2014. Top Image Systems (now Kofax), Fiserv, eBankIT, and Wallaby Financial (now Bankrate) all released tools for Google Glass in 2014.

Most are familiar with the fate of Google’s mixed reality glasses– they were discontinued in 2015. The failure of Google Glass is not the point, however. What matters is the speed at which this group developed around the new technology. We can expect the same for the metaverse.

You’re already behind

It’s easy to sleep on trends that seem like they are nothing but hype. Despite that, if you’ve been sleeping on this trend, you’re already behind. JP Morgan announced yesterday that it has joined the metaverse by opening a virtual lounge. Located in Decentraland, JP Morgan’s Onyx Lounge shows a timeline of the bank’s blockchain innovations, has three videos to watch, and has a tiger walking around.

The bank also released a white paper on opportunities in the metaverse. “There is a lot of client interest to learn more about the metaverse,” JPMorgan’s Head of Crypto and the Metaverse Christine Moy told Coindesk. “We put together our white paper to help clients cut through the noise and highlight what the current reality is, and what needs to be built next in technology, commercial infrastructure, privacy/identity and workforce, in order to maximize the full potential of our lives in the metaverse.”

In five years, you’ll wish you had paid attention

If there’s nothing to the metaverse right now, why bother paying attention? Because five years from now you’ll wish you had been paying attention.

While it’s easy to say that about any risk-laden investment such as real estate or tech stocks, you can consider the example of cryptocurrency. What if your organization had been investing in crypto research five years ago? You may have already been leveraging the benefits of stablecoins or smart contracts. The metaverse is just one more way to invest in the future of your organization.

Metaconomy

One very attractive aspect of the metaverse is that it is intertwined with the blockchain. In the metaverse, digital assets will be exchanged for digital currencies in a new economy. There is even speculation that work will take place in the metaverse. According to JP Morgan, $54 billion is spent on virtual goods each year and NFTs have a current market capitalization of $41 billion. Banks won’t want to be left out of this new metaconomy.

It’s where you’ll find your next clients

Generation Z* and Generation Alpha** are not only digital natives, many of them are mixed reality natives. They’ve grown up with virtual reality headsets and spend hours a day in parallel universes such as Fortnite. To capture the attention of this group, there is no doubt that financial services companies will need to meet these young clients where they are.

If JP Morgan’s bet on Decentraland is any indication, banks and fintechs should start planning their first move in the metaverse. However, as Cornerstone Advisors’ Alex Johnson recently pointed out, they may want to hold off on building their first bank branch in the metaverse.

*people born between 1997 and 2012

**people born between 2011 and 2025

Photo by julien Tromeur on Unsplash

The modern world has witnessed three major economies. First, there was the industrial economy in which people earned money through physical activity. Then came the consumer economy in which people made money performing services. Next, the knowledge economy enabled people to earn money through leveraging intellectual capital and insight. 

In these past few years, we’ve been witnessing the birth of the creator economy, a new economy fueled by social media platforms and video sharing. This new working order democratizes the ability for anyone to become a celebrity. Here’s a look at four key facts of this new economy.

Who

While many consider the creator economy to be limited to YouTubers and Instagram influencers, it actually has a wider breadth. In essence, everyone with an online presence is a creator, since we are all making content and sharing it online in some form.

A more exclusive definition of a creator is anyone who monetizes content online. This represents not just social media influencers, but also includes those who create and sell NFTs, ebooks, podcasts, digital art, etc.

Because there are such low barriers to entry in the creator economy, even kids can do it. In fact, one of the most famous YouTube creators is Ryan, an 11-year-old with 30.9 million subscribers who posts videos of himself playing with toys. Ryan is reportedly worth $32 million.

The participation of kids in the creator economy is influencing how younger generations view their future. According to a recent study, one third of kids between ages eight and 12 want to be either a YouTubber or Vlogger when they grow up.

Size

The current size of the creator economy is over $100 billion and growing. YouTube alone expects a $30 billion stream of revenue by the end of 2021. Of the 50 million people that consider themselves a creator, around two million of these are professionals making six-figure salaries.

Where’s the money?

Just like other economies, one of the ways that creators are recognized for their contributions is by getting paid. While this payment used to come from ads, branded content, or sponsorships, today’s monetization looks different. That’s because, instead of relying on third party sponsorships and brands to receive payments, creators now receive payments via subscriptions, tips, and even by payments directly from the user.

One of the latest examples of this is TikTok, which recently introduced the concept of in-app tipping. Users with more than 100,000 followers can apply to begin receiving tips from their fan base. When they receive a tip, 100% of the compensation goes to the creator; TikTok doesn’t take a commission.

Creators aren’t just getting paid in dollars. Owners and creators of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) receive payment in cryptocurrencies in exchange for their work. For more on how NFT compensation works, check out our piece 7 Things to Know about the NFT Craze.

How to leverage the opportunity?

The most important part about the creator economy for banks and fintechs is knowing how to leverage the opportunity. The future of this economy is unlike any we’ve ever seen in that payment and monetization may not rely on traditional banking infrastructure. In fact, many participants’ future revenue will be decentralized.

What we know for sure, however, is that personalization and customer experience matter and will continue to reign, even when payments are thrown off the rails. Many digital banks are already capitalizing on this opportunity. Just take a look at Nerve, a bank for musicians; Karat Financial, a bank for digital creators; and Willa, an invoicing tool for creators.

These financial services firms are different from banks in that they understand the unique challenges that come with being a creator. For example, creators experience many of the same difficulties as the self-employed, such as difficulty qualifying for a loan. They also often times have lumpy cashflow and need help with budgeting and financial planning.

There is still time for traditional banks to come up to speed in the creator economy. The key to serving this unique customer base will be to expand your existing resources for self-employed customers by offering new services such as revenue-based financing and on-demand wage access. As with most things in today’s digital banking era, the only way to properly serve this new user base will be through partnerships.

Photo by Ben Eaton on Unsplash

The concept of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is already familiar to most in the banking and fintech industry. However, the idea that the U.S. will have a functioning CBDC of its own in the near future still seems far-fetched.

PwC’s CBDC global index ranks the U.S. 18th in the globe when it comes to the maturity of its retail CBDC project. This places the U.S. significantly behind countries including the Ukraine, Uruguay, and Turkey, which all rank among the top 10.

So when the U.S. rarely ranks below the top 10 in any global comparison, what’s holding it back when it comes to CBDCs? There are three major reasons, as outlined below.

Slow

The U.S. is a big ship to turn, partially because the country’s legislative process is slow. This is true especially when compared to other countries, such as China, which have more authoritarian control over citizens.

This lack of agility can be seen in other federal initiatives, such as FedNow, the U.S. central bank’s instant payment service. Initially announced in 2019, the service will begin a phased launch of real time payments in 2023 and aims to be fully operational by 2024. As American Banker noted, FedNow should instead be called FedLate. By the time the central bank rolls out instant payments, many other private industry players will have already stepped in. In fact, some already have. Ripple, The Clearing House, and Orum are already offering real-time payment solutions.

And the U.S.’s progress is slow not only when it comes to implementing a CBDC, but even in simply making the decision to implement one. Earlier this fall, the Federal Reserve announced plans to “soon” release its research on a CBDC. While this is an important first step, the report won’t even take a stance on whether or not the U.S. should issue a CBDC.

Fragmented

This is a big one. The U.S. government is siloed; there is no central authority of who would have direct oversight or responsibility for the issuance or regulation of a CBDC.

Government branches that would want a say in the matter include not only the Federal Reserve, but also the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Office of Financial Research, and state and regional authorities.

This list doesn’t even include private commercial banks, which will be crucial to the rollout of a CBDC.

This large number of stakeholders is highlighted when contrasted with India, Kenya, and Brazil, which all have central digital payment systems that are overseen by their respective central banks.

Untrusted

Simply stated, many U.S. citizens don’t trust their government. This distrust is potentially the consequence of free speech mixed with 21st century communication technologies and sharing platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, which help spread misinformation and skepticism. If you’ve ever met someone who thinks that the Earth is flat, you know what I mean.

U.S. citizens’ reactions to a recently proposed measure, the IRS reporting mandate, illustrate that the distrust of the government isn’t just for conspiracy theorists. The IRS reporting mandate was part of President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, a bill that would have required financial institutions to report inflows and outflows totaling more than $600 from bank accounts to the IRS.

The purpose of the bill was to catch tax fraud; it would generate an estimated $463 billion in revenue over 10 years. However, many citizens on both sides of the political divide viewed the additional governmental surveillance as overreach. “While the intent of this proposal is to ensure all taxpayers meet their obligations—a goal we strongly share—the data that would be turned over to the IRS is overly broad and raises significant privacy concerns,” Democratic representatives wrote to Speaker Pelosi. “We have little information about how the IRS plans to protect or use this massive trove of data. Americans expect their bank or credit union to safeguard their financial information.”

If the U.S. government issued its own digital currency, many would switch to cash or alternative currencies. It is evident that U.S. citizens don’t want to offer data on financial habits to their government. Additionally, many would likely not appreciate that the government would be able to dictate how they spend a government-issued currency. Indeed, one of the most appealing aspects for governments of a CBDC is that they can control how and when certain funds, such as stimulus checks for example, are spent.

The last shall be first and the first last

Ultimately, the headline of this piece may be a bit dramatic. The U.S. may not necessarily be the last to establish its own CBDC. However, it is already lagging behind many developed countries and doesn’t appear to be making much progress.

“The reason you could say the U.S. is behind in the digital currency race is I don’t think the U.S. is aware there is a race,” Yaya Fanusie, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and a former CIA analyst, said in an interview with TIME. “A lot of policymakers are looking at it and concerned…but even with that I just don’t think there’s this sense of urgency because the risk from China is not an immediate threat.”

And as TIME described, this disconnect may cause the U.S. to cede control of previously established global financial power. “With private companies pushing deeper into the digital currency space, rival countries seeking to seize leadership, and a public that is moving further away from physical currency,” the author wrote, “the U.S. is facing a world in which it may not control or even lead the world’s payment systems.”

Photo by Sides Imagery from Pexels