This is a draft mission statement from the Open Metaverse Initiative:

https://hackmd.io/@indiebio/OMI-mission

"We do not strictly adhere to an explicit definition of the Metaverse. We do make the distinction that virtual worlds are not equal, but are sub-parts of the #Metaverse."

They consider all virtual worlds to be part of this ethereal concept of "the Metaverse". This is so unhelpful as to be bewildering.

You would not know it by this statement nor a cursory glance at popular "metaverse" projects, but The Metaverse has a clear and precise definition provided by the works that originally defined it. I discuss this at length here: https://habla.news/u/arkinox@arkinox.tech/LgILfOouzSU_hO3EnuUk4

The crux of the problem is this: most people are building a metaverse-as-a-platform instead of metaverse-as-a-protocol. The people building metaverse-as-a-protocol are missing the key ingredients: it must be permissionless and thermodynamic. There is only one metaverse that is a permissionless thermodynamic protocol: #cyberspace built on nostr.

If you are on #nostr, there's a good chance you understand the difference between platforms and protocols. If you are a bitcoiner, there's a good chance you understand why thermodynamics matters when it comes to creating something digital and consequential.

I happily contradict #OMI in declaring:

THERE IS NO SECOND BEST

#cyberspace is "The Metaverse" and all other virtual worlds are inconsequential video games.

If any metaverse is going to matter in the future, it will be the one with the most hash rate 🔥

🖐

🎤