Hello all and welcome back to another newsletter. I hope this post finds you well.
Today I’d like to discuss a topic that is more theoretical in nature than we are typically used to around here at Mr. Fox’s Plan. I still think it will be of interest to you, and perhaps more interesting than the average email you get from me. This is a concept my twin brother and I debated into existence in our college dorm room earlier this year. Let’s get into it.
My generation has had the unique experience of growing up with social media almost side-by-side. We each took our steps through infancy (Facebook launched in 2004, Twitter in ‘06), adolescence (Instagram and Snapchat launched in 2010 and ‘11, respectively), and now maturtity (TikTok, the full evolution of the social media star as the celebrity, etc.), together. Social media has almost been like an imaginary friend to us - nobody could physically see it, but it has been by our side in lockstep from what feels like Day 1.
There are a whole host of outsized benefits and potentially massive losses to society as a result of the proliferation of social media. Many people much smarter than me have analyzed these effects. That’s not what I’m going to do today. This is not a post about social media.
Of the hundreds (perhaps thousands or even tens of thousands, depending on how granular your view is) of the newly formed social phenomena and ettiquettes now woven into our day-to-day interactions as a result of the rise of social media, there is one that I find particularly interesting.
This phenomenon is one that I’d wager anybody who has ever used one of the primary social broadcasting platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat) has been guilty of, and it is the creation of the digital persona.
We all know the digital persona very well - it is the character we compose on social media using the parts of ourselves we’d like to show, or emphasize, to the world.
Notice how I didn’t say “the side of ourselves that we show to the world”. This is often how people describe the technique of people propping up their lives to make it look like their living a more desireable life than what actually exists in reality, but I think this is an ignorant mischaracterization of what’s going on.
By choosing to leave parts of you in the shadows and bringing other parts into the light, you present a different person online than who you actually are, and to me this is evidence enough to posit that people aren’t merely showing different sides of themselves, but that they’re creating entirely new people, new characters and presenting these creations as themselves.
As my generation and social media have grown up beside each other for so long, I’ve had the privilege of watching first-hand not just the development of this new social paradigm, but the evolution of various different digital personas over time - friends, family, my own, or otherwise.
Many days I would (and still) go to school and see one person, who then appears as somebody different entirely online later that night. It truly is something wild to behold. People I know to be objectively lowkey choosing to post only when, on the rare occurence, they’re out doing something exciting, or those who spend the majority of their time obsessing over the material world presenting themselves as ‘holier than thou’ virtue signallers. Make no mistake, I am and have been just as guilty of the crafting of the digital persona as anybody, if not more than anybody (although I’d like to think I’m becoming more concious of it).
Before I entered Web3 and began reading things like Metaverse theory, I deeply wished (and believed) that this phenomenon of the digital persona would come to an end. That the importance of social media would, for the first time in my concious life, take a backseat. Although the idea that it wouldn’t had cetainly dawned on me before I began my crypto journey, it was after I began getting involved in the space and learned about where things were headed that I knew digital personas were here to stay, forever.
As I think about the digital persona in how it exists through social media, I acknowledge that the extent that one can craft this persona is inherently limited - the pictures you take must be of you (although many go through the effort of nuanced editing), you must actually be at that cool place, and you must actually have that new gadget or expensive accessory. Of course, some will do a lot of work to get around these barriers, but when it comes to the believability of the digital persona, these are the rules we are working with.
Today, I spend time thinking about what the next evolution of the digital persona will be as we enter The Metaverse. As the number of ways we can express our digital persona increase exponentially, no longer tethered to who we are in reality, what will the typical digital persona look like?
We should take a small aside to address that, for the first time, the digital persona will extend beyond the individual and into space and place, as people gain the ability to build and showcase the assets they’ve collected as reflections of their personal interests through platforms like OnCyber or 6529’s OM. These exhibits deserve an entire paper to themselves, and are not what we will discuss in the rest of this piece today, but are nonetheless very important to include in the definition of the next iteration of the digital persona.
As I walk through the halls and rooms of my college dorm, it’s clear to me that film, TV, music, and sports, old and new, are still as culturally relevant as ever. Vito Corleone, Jordan and Pippen, Jimi Hendrix, and Tony Soprano can all be found plastered to the walls besides the likes of the newer Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort, Rick and Morty, Tyler the Creator, and Lebron James.
One way we can think about each of these characters, artists, and athletes is as very strong brands. In how they relate to the digital persona of today, it’s commonplace for an individual to emulate or model their aesthetic (or vibe, in NFT terms) after these personal heroes of theirs. Posts will include quotes from these icons, some will don them as their profile pictures, and others will simply post photos of them all in an effort to broadcast to the world their own personal values, motivations, goals, and where they align in the culture.
So the question then becomes, in what new ways will people signal these things through their digital persona of The Metaverse, and in a future where near infinite customization of the digital persona seems looming, how will the culture integrate with it?
Now I try and stray away from the intellectually easy interpretation that The Metaverse will look more like Ready Player One than not, but when it comes to what we’ll actually look and dress and like, I tend to think it’s the most likely outcome. I see it as more likely that someone will be walking through The Metaverse with a cape on than a hoodie. I think this for a few reasons:
In a world where you can dress, and to some extent be anything, do we really believe the limitless creativity of human beings will drive us to dress and present ourselves the same way we do in the physical world? Put differently, do we really believe people will be dressing in jeans and ties in The Metaverse? We’re going to create and operate in an entirely digital world and the line we’re going to draw in the sand of social ettiquette is the way we’re going to dress?
Both physical and digital world evidence suggests not. The erosion of business attire has existed for quite some time already in the most tech-focused sectors of the world (i.e. Silicon Valley). More on the digital world evidence in the next point.
The Metaverse will be the biggest IP unlock of all-time for those who hold the rights to the biggest film and television shows in the world. To me, this is the biggest point and the crux of the piece today. I see such a devastating issue for the film and television studios who hold the aforementioned rights: they own the rights of some of, if not the most culturally siginificant brands in the world (remember from above that a character on its own can be a brand), with no real way to monetize it after its initial iteration (the film or show). Herein lies the unlock for these organizations made by possible by NFTs and The Metaverse. Whether we admit it or not, all of us on some level desire to be our cultural heroes of the silver screen. In one of the most popular case studies for evidence that The Metaverse could work, I return to Fortnite by Epic Games. Wild was the enthusiasm for players to gear up in the skin of movie characters like John Wick, Deadpool, or Batman, because for one of the first times ever, users were able to play as their cultural icons and broadcast the values of these icons as their own to everybody they crossed paths with.
Although both The Matrix (1999) and Clueless (1995) pictued above were released before my time, they’re fantastic examples of films that have had deep impact on a) mainstream fashion trends, and b) the aesthetic of the digital persona.
The question to me, becomes, how much more popular would these trends have become if the limits of the physical world weren’t imposed on them?
Or…
If given the choice, would someone want to take inspiration from their favourite characters in the way they dress, or would they want to look exactly like them?
And finally we reach the title of the article today. Obviously nobody knows the answers to the above questions, but I tend to think that it’s going to be a combination/balance.
For example, I don’t think anybody would want to walk around like a Neo copycat/body double/look alike, because it would be extremely tacky. It’s why only a small subset of the world participates in cosplay.
But what’s interesting to consider is whether or not people would want to take particular pieces from Neo, that everybody would still recognize as his. His shades, black leather jacket, or military boots could all be examples.
And then what happens when you begin mixing and matching with other culturally significant IPs? As a massive Fantastic Mr. Fox, Lord of the Rings, and The Matrix fan, how would I craft my digital persona if I could buy the wardrobes from these films? Would I wear Neo’s jacket, take Mr. Fox’s fur, and walk with Gandalf’s staff? Would that be a truer actualization of my digital persona? I’m not sure, but it’s damn interesting to think about.
We must take a moment to remind ourselves why and how this could be a possibility: we already see evidence of the existence of the digital persona, we see that the appearance of this digital persona is influenced by the culture, but we also see that the extent to which the culture and the digital persona can integrate is limited by the physical world. Thus, we’re exploring in what ways the increased customizability and creative ability afforded by The Metaverse might allow people to more deeply intertwine the parts of the culture they align with and their digital persona.
We still need to clearly define what this future of Metaverse fashion might look like for the owners of this IP. Very simply, I imagine an insane unlock of IP made possible through NFTs. I see the individual pieces of wardrobes and accessories from these films and television shows being made available to purchase as ERC-1155s. Will there be different rarities to pieces? Possibly, it just comes down to revenue maximization calculations. From Stranger Things to Harry Potter, I envision a world where people will be able to pull clothing and accessories from all of their favourite films and shows to create the digital persona that most accurately signals their beliefs to the world.
This idea is compelling to me because so many are so familiar with so much film and TV content, that much of the world understands what these movies and shows are trying to communicate on a subtextual level, and thus by associating these pieces of media to ourselves through wardrobe, conveying personal values through appearance has never been easier. Whether done through the clothing of popular IP or not, it’s a great example of one of the greatest benefits of The Metaverse that can never be replicated in the physical world.
What is so interesting about this possibility is that it changes two industries entirely. Firstly, studios (or whoever owns the IP), are now on an equal playing field with all of the fashion houses and apparel lines of today. What will this look like? Will people prefer Gucci shoes or Neo’s boots? Will they serve different demographics entirely? How will traditional clothing sense change as a result of the way we present ourselves in The Metaverse? Will mergers and acquisitions between film studios and fashion brands start making sense?
Greater is the impact this will have on the film industry, as it will be the first new layer to revenue generation beyond ticket sales for films or viewers for television shows. Sure, there have been other attempts at monetizing IP, but chances are if you’re not owned by Disney, they’ve made close to nothing (i.e. Disney has been able to successfully build theme parks and merchandise but nobody else has, less Universal). Focus will shift back to creating original stories as opposed to reboots and sequels as organizations strive to create more IP to montetize off of. How will this affect the financial role of the actor? Will they begin demanding portions of revenues generated from Metaverse apparel? Will storybook writing surge in popularity as authors look for their novels to be adapted?
How likely is this reality? If we decide it’s likely, are there any investable opportunities in it? Are there any assets we should stay away from?
One thought to consider is how these PFP projects that are forcing the “build IP with your rights” narrative down our throats will fare once real cultural IP gets unlocked in the ways we described above. Will they get swept to the side and trend to zero, will their historical significance save them, or will holders have generated successful IP around them by that time?
There are more questions left unanswered than answered in today’s piece. Primarily because I wanted to take an article to muse on the possibilities of The Metaverse. It is in these ways that if we keep critically thinking, not only might we figure out what the future is going to look like, but we give ourselves a shot at being the ones who build it.
A special shoutout must go out to my twin brother, who without this idea never would’ve been born.
What did I get wrong? What do you wildly disagree with? What idea could have been more fleshed out? I love learning from you, so you can reach me at my Twitter to discuss the piece today at @f4ntast1cmrf0x.
If you’re new here, consider subscribing if this is the type of content you’d like to receive in your inbox. Although I can’t promise that I will adhere to a specific posting schedule, remember that every other article I post here is for paying subscribers only.
If you’re already subscribed, take a second and think if there’s anybody you think would be interested in today’s piece in particular and share it with them:
And down the Rabbit Hole we continue.
Mr. Fox.