In this episode, we discuss Coca-Cola releasing a soft drink aimed at gamers and the metaverse, Ubisoft no longer making content for some games including no more NFTs, the shutdown of F1 Delta Time leaving people with worthless NFTs, Sky Mavis raising $150 million in a Binance-led funding round, Decentraland and Sandbox struggling with user acquisition, and so much more!

Episode 20 Keywords: Coca-Cola, soft drinks, Ubisoft, NFTs, NFT, F1 Delta Time, Sky Mavis, Axie Infinity, Binance, funding round, metaverse, user acquisition

Welcome to the metaphysics podcast. The Metaverse and web three are bringing about the

biggest revolution since the internet itself. With your hosts Paul the prophet Dawalibi And Jeff the

juice Cohen. We will be bringing you the latest Metaverse, business news and insight into what it

all means. The meta business podcast starts now. From the

boardroom to the metaverse. This is the meta business podcast. I am Paul Dawalibi. I'm

joined today by my friend and co host, Jeff the juice Cohen. For those of you who are new here,

welcome to the official podcast of the metaverse. What we do here is we cover the most pressing,

Metaverse, stories and news of the week but we look at all of it through a business and C suite

lens we dissect we analyze the business implications of everything happening in this

amazing industry. For our regular listeners. Thank you guys for tuning in tuning in every week. Thank

you for leaving five star ratings and reviews on the podcast if you haven't already go do that it

helps others to find the podcast and and subscribe, right follow the podcast whether you're

on Spotify or Apple podcasts or Google Play or Stitcher wherever you get this podcast. Make sure

to hit that follow or subscribe button so you get notified when a new episode drops and they drop

every single week. Jeff How you doing this week?

Doing very good. I'm actually on vacation in Florida. You know so just came back

through the pool. I had a nice little island drink but nothing I'd rather be doing more than this.

If I expect you to come back with us tanned as I was after my time in Florida so

but I golf yesterday I put on like 50 SPF but apparently I was not strong enough to

defeat the sun.

I'm jealous. I'm jealous. The only golfing I can do in New York at the moment is is

work virtual unfortunately. In the metaverse. There you go. I just want to mention Jeff, before

we jump into our stories this week, I for our listeners who are really into crypto, obviously,

you know Kryptos a big part of what we talked about here on this podcast because a big part of

the metaverse I was on a podcast this week. It should it should be out by the time you guys hear

this. The future of money podcast which is very much focused on the crypto space. But the

conversation was all around the intersection of gaming and crypto and Metaverse and things like

that. So definitely go check that out the future of money podcast. The episode should be out by the

time this drop. So curious what you guys think of that discussion. It's a little bit more crypto

focused. Jeff, let's jump into the topics this week. Let's start with something fun as we you

know often do, and this is Coca Cola news. We wouldn't expect maybe to have Coca Cola Metaverse

news, but we do and the headline here is Coca Cola launches its latest weird soda flavor in the

metaverse. So they announced this new flavor. It's from their Coca Cola creations department. It's

apparently inspired by gaming and it's called zero sugar bite. For those watching this and not

listening. You can see the image of the can it's sort of purplish it looks pixelated. The the

interesting part here is this is going to appear or it has launched first in the metaverse

specifically fortnight. And it's only coming in physical form in May so call it about a month from

now. And the flavor the real life flavor is supposedly going to be or at least coke has

described it as the flavor of pixels. I have two questions on this one. How would you rate Coca

Cola sort of entry into the metaverse because I think this is one of the first times I've heard

about them doing something like this. And second of all, well, how do you feel about this sort of

strategy of Metaverse launch first, then real life launch second.

I actually I like it. I mean, that was one of the things I was gonna point out. I mean, I

think the I liked the strategy of kind of melding the digital to the physical we. We've talked about

this in many episodes in the past, like I think that is a really creative way to do it. I think

it's interesting that they're kind of using Metaverse that are Metaverse to be synonymous with

with fortnight here, I'm sure you know, the folks that epic are probably happy that branded in that

way. And they you know, we might push back a little bit but I guess it's fair to say that

fortnight is a Metaverse currently and arguably maybe even the most the most developed at this

point. So I think it's a good it's a good brand activation. I've no idea what the flavor of pixels

tastes like. But

that's except to find out. We'll find

out that's that's pretty cool. The other one interesting connection here. I know that

the executive that went over from Coca Cola to Zynga to actually be their head of like blockchain

gaming kind of meta verses are actually came from Coca Cola. I believe his name is Matt Wolf. So I

wonder if he, you know, had any hand in this before he kind of left Thursday. about maybe a few

months ago. It's just an interesting tidbit.

What do you think is the benefit of the metaverse launch? Before the physical launch?

Do you think this is pure? I mean, obviously, it's marketing, right? Like, that was the strategy. We

they want to reach a very specific audience or demographic. And, you know, the metaverse slash

fortnight audience, probably they felt was the right fit for this product. I mean, that seems,

right.

I think yeah, I think you sort of hit the nail on the head there. It's you're trying to

hit a target demographic, and you need to meet them where they are and where they are is in

Metaverse in gaming in games. So it makes a lot of sense, right? It's gonna build up a little bit of

hype, I think, because it's a little bit unique in the sense of digital to physical, I think you'll

have people kids kind of buzzing about this a bit. And then they'll all try it when it comes out, you

know, will end up being a one hit wonder kind of thing where it's a they try it once and then they

never try it again. Or do they actually like it stick around that obviously remains to be seen.

But I think this will do very well. Actually.

I agree. There's a there's like a concept here that I think so many people or brands

miss and this is more of a personal anecdote, but as a longtime gamer, I could probably make a list

of 100 things I wish I could have from the digital worlds transported into the physical real world,

right? Like, there's probably 100 things that I would I would kill to have, and maybe not all

drinks but you know things in games items and games things that have meaning because we I played

the game and I use game and Metaverse quite interchangeably here because that's really how

they're using it with fortnight one last thing on this I thought was interesting is it said epic was

not really involved in the activation Which to me that that feels like a step forward. It's sort of

glossed over in the article but it's it says specifically Coca Cola stresses this was a

creative build done without official sponsorship from Epic or fortnight and I think that's kind of

cool right if the platforms are now sufficiently open sufficiently easy enough for you know a

totally call it non endemic brand like Coca Cola to go in and and build something and obviously

they did it with an agency I'm guessing or something like that, but they built something on a

platform that without any support essentially from Epic or fortnight directly.

That's actually an incredibly good point. I didn't catch that when I read the article

because I now that you mentioned that probably is the most important or most interesting thing about

this entire activation and it is it's a bit odd that they wouldn't have you know, Coca Cola is a

big brand Yeah, maybe they just didn't want to pay epic but how did they even get it in the game that

is just in creative mode where anyone can kind of create something

I suspect that's what they did yeah, it says it's a custom Island

built yet anything in otherwise right like not in the main game

right obviously not but in created it says it was a custom Island built in fortnight

creative. So look, I think it's cool. I'm not even a huge fortnight player, but I can't wait to try

this you know, this pixel flavored cola and I feel like this is one you buy and leave on the

bookshelf behind you sort of as a as a souvenir as a collectible also.

So the question is before we move on, now do you think that they will do this in other

meta versus slash should they like if they're putting it in fortnight, your question not that

hard to probably also put a Coca Cola mode in the same thing in Roblox in decentraland, and sandbox,

whichever other Metaverse is you want to say? Why wouldn't they do that?

I think the I think to your first comment, which I think was spot on it the the

target demographic has to fit here. And fortnight feels sort of right Roblox I feel they may have

come under the gun of like selling sugary drinks to like minors kind of thing because Roblox has

this perception of being younger sandbox and decentraland I just don't think are large enough

audiences for Coca Cola to care right that's part of the problem if you're Coke you need you need a

massive audience to move the needle cuz selling you know 1000 more cans of Coke doesn't doesn't do

anything so fortnight feels like it was spot on in terms of the choice both in terms of demographic

and perception and size and all those good things so no, I don't think they need to do anything

beyond this. I think this is a good sort of tip like a toes in the water kind of activation let's

move on. Because Jeff we have a lot to get to here and I at least two there's two stories here that I

want to talk about back to back because I think they are definitely related. And the first one the

headline here is Ubisoft ends, Ghost Recon breakpoint updates working on NF T's for other

titles. So Ubisoft no longer making contents for content for Ghost Recon breakpoint, including the

NF T's. What they're saying is the servers for breakpoint and wild lands will continue to be

maintained. But there's no more updates to the game. When Ubisoft was asked whether this includes

the game's NF T's, they received a screenshot from the Ubisoft courts website, confirming this to be

the case. So any players who claimed their first digit, which is Ubisoft term for an NFT, they say,

Ubisoft says you own a piece of the game and have left your mark in history, even though we could

argue I think the argument here is going to be what use is that NFT now that the game basically

is is shut down, now, it hasn't shut down completely, you know, they're still gonna maintain

the servers, a game that has shut down completely is f1 delta time. So this is the second story that

I want to put these back to back. And the headline here is owners left with worthless NF T's after f1

delta time racing game shuts down. So this is a game that was released in 2019. It was played earn

theory and based NF T's and you paid for these NF T's there was things like tires, cars, helmets,

etc. And, and all of these items now, essentially, I assume will be worthless because the game won't

exist to use them in. That's that's the question I have for you here. Jeff, what happens to these

ecosystems to these games played earn? Or in the case of Ubisoft not played earn? Right? This was

just, you could get your end game items as NF T's essentially what happens when these games shut

down? And what do you make of these two stories? Like, should we be ringing alarm bells? Or is this

is this nothing burger kind of story?

I think I think it's definitely on the scale, you know, closer towards bringing alarm

bells. The only reason why I'd say maybe it's not a five alarm fire is almost because it was so

obvious that this was going to happen. Like the the sort of NFT aiders predicted this like very

clearly, you know, very early on because without true interoperability, where it's like, Hey, I

haven't gone and Ghost Recon Bay Point, that game shuts down, I just bring it to Call of Duty or I

bring it the battlefield or fortnight or whatever. Without that, which we're still a ways away from

that clearly. All you are still at the mercy of a publisher, when they shut down a game. Yes, you

still technically own NFT of the asset. But that asset is effectively worthless, because no one

would buy it because it's, again, not playable. Obviously, the negotiators are frequent, you know,

one there is still a playable game, they're just not having updates. So it's effectively a Dead

game. The other one is even more surprising, because that one is completely getting shut down.

And I do think it's interesting as an aside that they were they lost the license to f1. Pretty wild

considering Animoca brands, who's the publisher is a massive, you know, mega company in terms of

this, this space, like it's a little surprising that they weren't able to kind of pay up and keep

the license or what you make of that.

I mean, I don't know if that part's surprising, because I'm sure the license is very

expensive. And almost all these played are in games, even anything Animoca. Like they're still

relatively niche, right? They're not, these are not massive games. In terms of player base. You

know, I like your point on in some ways, this proves the point that I've been making, which is

whether you call it played or earn played or any of these things, unless you have the play part.

The second part doesn't doesn't matter, right. On the future of money podcast, which I talked about

the beginning that I was on this week, I got asked what I felt about sort of played to earn models

and things like that, and you guys on this podcast and heard my opinions on that. But unless the

ownership breaks down the wall, the walled gardens of the publishers, to your point, what's the value

add to the gamer? Is there any? Right? If portability is not, is not part of it? Then all of

this is superfluous that doesn't, you know, makes no, there's no added value to the gamer. The

question I have for you is will situations like this turn people off from these models? Or NF T's

and games in general? Will it turn off gamers who will now reject everything because they think, you

know, it doesn't matter? Or will the stories make gamers stop and think, Hmm, the publishers have

way too much power. We need to challenge the walled gardens, right because now the walled

gardens are that much more obvious in situations like this, where you own a feel you own something,

and then shutting down the game makes that item you own worthless all of a sudden.

So what I hope happens is that it pushes the speculators out of the market. Like, I

don't know if it's going to change the opinions of gamers, because gamers would get upset, like,

let's say, you play Ghost Recon breakpoint, you're actually enjoying it. And they stopped putting out

updates. Granted, there stopped putting out updates, because not many people were playing, and

it was kind of a dead game to begin with. But there's probably, you know, 510 1000 people out

there that are like, kind of upset, maybe maybe less than that maybe there's 1000 people out there

that really make this game and there, it's that it's getting, you know, shut down. So you're

gonna, you were kind of going to have that anyway, what I think it might take out a little bit is the

speculative mania, where people were not even playing the game, just buying these assets to play

the metagame sort of to essentially gamble to invest, if you will, in these assets. Maybe that

takes that out. I think if there's a fun game, and that has NF T's, it can, it can make the game

better. And I think does this is that was sort of your point, it has to start with it being a fun

game, or it's like I would have bought this asset anyway, even if it wasn't NFT. And the fact that

it's an NFT, maybe makes it slightly better, because I could trade it at some point, if I want

is we option out. But anything other than that is just speculation. So I love

the insight on the speculators. But I want to come back to the original question I

had, which is if you're a gamer, right? For the last 10 years, you have sort of accepted the fact

that if I buy a skin in fortnight, I can't take it outside of fortnight and fortnight shuts down the

$10 I paid for the skin goes away. Right. And everyone has accepted that, then there's, you

haven't really heard a lot of complaints. It's just the nature of games in the gaming industry.

And no one has complained by making these items, NF T's and allowing gamers to feel like they own

something, which is the big sort of selling point of NF T's right now you own it. Do you think we

will get more backlash in these situations? Do you think, again, the gamers will, will take that

feeling of ownership and, and use it as a you know, like to go against the publishers

essentially, right? Because now they feel like they own something. Whereas before I just bought

this thing in game.

I think they absolutely, you know, you absolutely will see that, you know, as this

mindset gets kind of built out a bit more where it's like, Hey, I own this asset while you shut

down the game, but I own it, like you can't shut downs, it will feel a lot more of collective

ownership of a game by the community. And I think that's one of maybe the benefits of web three. You

know, but I still think we're sort of a long a long ways away from that. And even if that that

mindset is becoming the case, then what are they going to do you sort of said they'll accept less

from public but what would that even mean? Like they just stopped buying games that aren't web

three? Maybe that's the case but the game again the games have to be fun, like no one's gonna be

like well, I was gonna play Call of Duty but I don't own my assets. So I'm gonna go play like

some crappy web three game pretending

I guess deep down my hope is that by taking away something that maybe now you feel

you own more than you used to, gamers may start to put pressure on the developers to open the walled

gardens to allow for portability of assets now how that happens like you're right like the how that

actually happens. Your is complicated because will someone just stop buying Call of Duty if they

don't allow you to take your the skin you bought their over to the next Rainbow Six game? Probably

not. But I feel like we may at least hear chatter about it. And people may get vocal about it, if

nothing else now, will that cause any real change? Probably not. But something has to break the

walled gardens for NF T's and games to make sense. Something does

need to be fair, like, you know, a lot of the pushback from loot boxes, you know,

actually did work in many games have gotten rid of loot boxes, and I would say that is a direct

result of kind of the community backlash. So over time, with enough momentum, like gamers, voices

will sort of be heard the problem is right now gamers hate NFT. So, you know, on the side of NF

T's maybe not in the near term.

Let's let's talk about another game and game development studio man you know, making

play darn games. So this one we actually touched on last week and the big xe infinity hack $650

million dollar theft, basically on x infinity, but this story about sky Mavis, the parent company

vaccine Finiti. Sky Mavis raises $150 million led by binance funds to be restored On the ronin

bridge, so this is, you know, x infinity is announcing that they raised $150 million led by

binance participation from big names, obviously Animoca brands, and recent Horowitz, dialectic

paradigm. It says the round combined with Skye Mavis balance sheet funds will be used to ensure

that all users affected by that hack that we talked about last week will be reimbursed. So

they're going to make everyone whole supposedly. And they're saying their network will reopen once

it's once it's undergone a security upgrade, and several audit audits which can take several weeks,

and they're implementing rigorous internal security measures to prevent future attacks. So

they're raising, they raised 150 million here, Jeff, and to cover a $650 million hole or $600

million hole, whatever it was. So it means I guess there's a lot of money coming from the balance

sheet here. Are you surprised by this? Like, what do you make of this financing, to basically cover

losses from a hack?

I mean, it was an expensive, expensive mistake. I noticed they also didn't put any

valuation on the raise, I wonder if it was at the same as the last round? Or if they had to do you

know down round? Regardless, it's an expensive, inexpensive error. I will say good on them for you

know, I don't know if they had a choice, but they you know, the fact that they're reimbursing

everyone, I think this will probably help community sentiment to some extent. But it'll be

interesting to watch kind of how the I haven't looked at how the token price has reacted.

Because, you know, the funny thing about the play to earn games is that the price of the token

really impacts the amount of money you can make, which impacts the player base. So it almost, you

know, it can either be a virtuous cycle or death spiral, depending on that price of the token, the

price of the token is depressed, your earnings are lower. And if that's the reason why you're playing

the game, not because it's fun. Well, you don't have as much incentive to play the game. So that's

something to keep an eye on. But But yeah, to get back to this, I thought, you know, I read through

this, I think they did a pretty good job acknowledging, I think at one point in there, they

said, you know, in their efforts to move fast to get to the main screen and kind of build scale,

they may have cut some corners around security, which is a little bit of like a maybe too honest,

but I appreciate I did appreciate like that they were coming out with that. And, you know, at the

end of the day, they are startup despite the fact that they've raised a ton of money and whatnot.

They're not that old that it's, you know, hypergrowth type of company. So these things do

happen. But yeah, I thought that was interesting. Another thing that they talked about here at the

bottom, and the writing is really small. So maybe you could read some of these things. They they put

out some some pretty interesting little tidbits in this in this kind of financing note.

Yeah, they say they have 2.2 million monthly active players, it's the axes the

most played NFT game of all time. They've processed 10 times more all time volume than the

second largest NF T game. There are 2.6 million people that own axes, which is four times more

than the next largest NFT project, which is NBA Top Shot, and the ronin wallet has been downloaded

3 million times. So you know, yeah, it's interesting numbers, and they're way bigger than

the next best thing call it. But they're still relatively small. I mean, on a daily basis, more

people log into a 15 year old game and World of Warcraft than play xe infinity. Like, we're still

talking about really quite small numbers. If I'm an investor, and I'm filling the $650 million

hole, I mean, now. Now the exit has to be that much bigger. Because I've committed even more

capital to this. I'm curious if you think investors will ever see. I mean, early investors

obviously have probably already seen a massive return on this. But what are the long term

prospects look like for xe infinity in your mind or sky Mavis in light of you know, all this

capital going to fill this hole?

So I think it's important probably to maybe differentiate sky Mavis from xe infinity

obviously, Sky Mavis is the company that owns x infinity the game I'm fairly bearish on actually

infinity the game like I, you know, I do not think that they will see a massive return on that

specifically, and I'm sure that's not entirely worthy investors are, are kind of pinning their

hopes. I think the you know, the big hope is around kind of this road and wallet, this road and

bridge, sort of their side chain, if you will, not to get too deep into the crypto but, you know, and

I know we talked about this a little bit on the last podcast, I think that's kind of the picks and

shovels play where they're expecting people to use that wallet, other games to kind of enable to be

unable to use that wallet, which is why the hack in and of itself was so problematic, because, you

know, it kind of highlights, you know, the negative security aspects of that of that chain

that was sort of supposed to be a big, big part of that. investment thesis. The jury's definitely

still out on xe, I know they're they're coming out with kind of like a free to play version of the

game hoping to make the economy a bit less Ponzi ish. So we'll see once that comes out, we'll see

whether this can really kind of grow from 2 million da may use to, you know, 20 or 30 million,

which they really wouldn't need to to be kind of sustainable billion dollar franchise.

Yeah, I just think with this misstep, the relatively small player base numbers,

the fact that most of it's not in North America, right, you you tend to find the LAX infinity

players in a lot of third world or developing countries. You know, the the fact that I don't

think I've ever heard anyone say the game's really fun. I'm quite bearish on x infinity and even

more. So now that I've like 100 seen $150 million raise just to reimburse, you know, people for this

hack. I just don't see how xe infinity survives long term or it'll remain sort of niche long term.

So I'm quite bearish on that. Let's there's a related story here, which I think is worth

discussing, because it sort of ties into those last numbers we talked about at the end. And this

was an article from coin desk, and I thought was interesting. And you had flagged it here, Jeff.

The headline Metaverse major struggle as user base falls short of market expectations decentraland x

infinity in the sandbox have larger valuations and fewer active users than non blockchain games. The

the article actually goes in into some pretty good detail. And what it says is, in the past 30 days,

number of xe infinities average daily users has dropped 30% from the previous period to about

107,240. That's their average daily user Sandbox has fallen 29% to 1180. And decentraland, has lost

15% to 978 users a day, on average. I was shocked at these numbers. Because if any of these were

games on Steam, and you know, they mentioned this in the article, no one would ever be talking about

them. Literally no one like there. There are games made by one guy in his dog, you know, in a few

weeks that probably have larger player bases than some of these platforms. Maybe the decentraland

and sandbox ones were the most surprising. What do you think is the crux of the the issue here with

the daily active users? Like what? Why are they not seeing growth? They're given all the hype?

I mean, I think it gets into some of the stuff we talked about last week, when we were

discussing the fashion show, you know, in decentraland, where it just doesn't look that fun.

The world is not very populated. It's not, you know, HD graphics. It's a bad experience. It's

kind of buggy. Like, the question is whether that will remain the case? Or do we start getting

really, you know, to more of like Grand Theft Auto style, like meta versus where at least the

graphics are good, and it plays well. But yeah, I mean, it just shows when you it's almost like an

incredible to see the market cap of these coins fully diluted versus the player base, like you

pointed out less than 1000 people a day, that's probably

get more attention than decentraland that sandbox combined.

It's mind blowing good for them forgetting you know, they've sort of captured this

site marketing Zeitgeist The fact that we're even talking about it like, it's insane how well the

numbers are. It all comes

back to. And again, I feel like so much of the industry misses this. The core of the

metaverse has to be gaming. It has to be it has to the origin the foundation has to be gaming has to

be games and fun games. And people have to have a reason to go play them and spend their leisure

time there. Like meta verses will never exist if there's no purpose to being in the metaverse

Right. And, and I think this has always been the struggle of a decentraland or a sandbox, which is,

why am I there? And why should I go there? What is there to do there? Right with World of Warcraft, I

can tell you exactly what there is to do and why you should go do it and why it's enjoyable. With

Grand Theft Auto, um, Grand Theft Auto numbers would would put all of these to shame, right? And

I could argue that's way more of a Metaverse than decentraland is you have user generated content.

You have entire economies and ecosystems you have, you know, people with real avatars that they care

about. All these elements exist in games already. I'm not sure we needed to reinvent them. We I

think we needed to grow on top of them. Or at least mimic them because that's not what

decentraland and sandbox are doing. They're not sound like they said, Wow, that's a great game.

Let's go make a great game but allow it to be so much bigger and more open. And so this kind of

proves. I don't know. I don't know what I don't think we will be talking about those plot these

platforms in the next five years. I really don't think the metal the metaverse, capital T capital M

or any Metaverse is the good ones. The successful ones are going to grow out of games and we're

already seeing it with fortnight with Roblox, right maybe Minecraft to a lesser extent. We're

already seeing these grow out of games. I'm not sure they found the killer app for their

platforms. Maybe they will. I don't know if you have thoughts on that. Do you think they find a

killer app that reverses this?

It would have to be a fun game. Like you said. I mean, you know, some of the stuff was

like, one off events like fashion shows stuff like that, like movie premieres, concerts. They could

do it but other meta verses are doing it better because the people are there like a concert in

fortnight is gonna get much better attendance than a concert in decentraland or sandbox. So they'll

see little spikes but yeah, I don't know. I agree with you. I think right now I'd have to say I lean

bearish to very bearish on these these sorts of Metaverse, platforms that seem to be just almost

like marketing wrapped up in a different, you know, bow like it just not just to be clear,

not bearish on Metaverse at all. I'm just saying where what the origins need to

where it needs to start from to achieve massive scale doesn't feel like one of these platforms.

Yeah. Jeff, that that wraps up this week's podcast. I mean, we we flew through those stories

of time always flies. Thank you. Of course. As always, thank you guys, for tuning in every week.

Just a reminder, make sure you follow subscribe the metal business podcast. Go check out that

future of money podcast I was on this week. Make sure you follow and subscribe to our sister

podcast the metal woman podcast which is all about gaming and Metaverse, but highlighting women in

the space and some of the really amazing things they're doing. And this this drops every single

week guy so let us know how you're loving the podcast. Let us know anything you want to see

different. Any suggestions for new stories, make sure you're sending them to us. Make sure to

follow Jeff juice on Twitter Jeff Cohen 23. And don't forget guys, the future is fun. We'll see

you next week.

Thanks for joining us here on meta business. Make sure to subscribe to this podcast

everywhere you get your podcasts, leave a five star review and tell your friends, family and

colleagues all about us. Also, make sure to follow metta TV on all socials to get more of the best

Metaverse content anywhere. Tune in every week for another episode of metta business.