> The value for a consumer is less about paying and more about earning (which sounds dystopic to some, but is very exciting imo). And beyond that, layered experiences mean you could get an item / art / skin / etc and carry it through disparate digital worlds. One could imagine a world where no longer are you playing one game with one set of items, but are instead able to carry your stuff into multiple experiences.

This comes up all the time and is laughably naïve. What possible reason would Epic have to let you transfer a skin or player model to their game if you didn't pay them for it? Game DLC is already broken and consumer hostile. Assuming blockchains and NFTs will do anything to improve it is absurd.

> Here I'm referring to digital experiences like concerts, parties, tours, AMAs, etc. where there is some set of rules to obtain the entry pass (in NFT form).

An NFT has no utility here. Where's the secondary market of suckers wanting to buy an NFT for a thing they didn't experience? If there's no suckers further down the pyramid there's no point in an NFT. It's just an event ticket.

> If people could altruistically create high-quality content and earn a living that way I'd agree with you.

This is the core problem. You're positing a world where every system for some reason cares about things on some blockchain. You're trying to treat an entry on a blockchain like real physical ownership. All this does is port inequality and inequity to a virtual space where it does not naturally exist. Scarcity is not a sine qua non of virtual spaces.

That's just a recipe for a hypercapitalist exploitive hellscape. Join the metaverse! You'll be just as poor as in real life! Join the fun!