Research shows that these virtual banks are not very easy to use and don’t really give customers anything of value. A Razorfish study found that even GenZ gamers, who spent a lot of time in the metaverse anyway, did not feel comfortable in these immersive experiences.
Sandeep Vishnu, a partner at the consulting firm Capco, told “Banking Dive” that the banking industry can’t afford to stay out of the metaverse race, but investing in it might not be the best move for all financial institutions. “Banks should think about their target market when deciding how much they want to be involved in the space,” he said. A bank that serves older people might not think of the metaverse as the promised land. “If you don’t have enough customers for this interaction model to work, will you change direction and try to get a new set of customers? I think this must be part of the bank’s overall plan and not just a one-time thing “He kept going.
In the absence of interoperability, banks have launched services for making avatars and multiple marketplaces for buying non-financial assets, but there is nowhere else to sell them.
Other institutional investors have also spent millions of dollars to buy land in the metaverse. They were drawn to the metaverse by its endless possibilities. The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) office in Hong Kong also bought LAND in Sandbox for $10,000. A CNBC report says that in the real world, the average cost of a home is about $280,000. (USD 287,148 to be exact). In an interesting way, this is the same as buying a piece of virtual land in a society that is growing. This would mean that banks spend a lot of real money to buy virtual land so that virtual users can have the same experiences as real ones. Will these worthless ads on a virtual land with overstated value bring in real money?