Could Otherside Ignite Another Metaverse Hype Cycle in 2026?

Otherside is the metaverse project from Yuga Labs, the company behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club collection. It was announced in 2022 as a shared virtual world where holders of its land NFTs, called Otherdeeds, could build, play and socialise. The launch drew a large amount of attention because of Yuga Labs' existing community and because the land sale was run in ApeCoin, a token tied to that ecosystem.

The project is usually discussed in one of two ways. Supporters see it as an example of a brand-led world with a loyal audience. Critics see it as a reminder of how many metaverse plans were announced with big promises and slow delivery. Both views can be true at once, which is why the question of a new hype cycle is worth asking carefully.

It also helps to separate three things that often get mixed together: the Otherside project itself, the Otherdeed NFTs that people hold, and the broader idea of the metaverse. Progress on one does not automatically mean progress on the others. A good explainer keeps these apart and asks what each one has actually delivered.

For readers, the practical starting point is simple. Otherside is a live project that has changed over time, so the right question is not whether it is famous but whether it is delivering a world people want to use. Check its official updates and independent coverage before forming a view, and treat any single post or price chart as incomplete evidence.

Research firm Gartner popularised a model often called the Hype Cycle. It describes how expectations for a new technology tend to rise and fall over time. The model has five broad phases.

• Innovation trigger: a breakthrough or product launch starts public interest.
• Peak of inflated expectations: excitement outruns what the technology can do.
• Trough of disillusionment: early projects fail to meet promises and attention drops.
• Slope of enlightenment: practical uses emerge and people learn what works.
• Plateau of productivity: the technology settles into normal, useful adoption.

The model is a way of thinking, not a timetable. Not every technology passes through every stage, and some never reach the plateau. Gartner's own materials describe it as a tool for discussing expectations rather than a forecast of exact dates. Commentators also use it loosely, so when someone says a technology is at a certain stage, ask what evidence they are using.

For a metaverse project like Otherside, the useful question is which phase the sector is in and what would move it forward. A renewed upswing in attention might be an innovation trigger, or it might be the start of another peak. The difference shows up over months, in usage, in reliability and in whether early promises are kept.

The metaverse became a mainstream topic in late 2021, when Facebook's parent company renamed itself Meta and put the word at the centre of its strategy. Companies across media, retail and finance announced virtual stores, events and worlds. Many of these launched quickly, with limited features, and attention moved on when users did not stay.

By 2022 and 2023 the mood had shifted. Virtual land prices fell in many worlds, some projects closed or scaled back, and commentators began to describe the metaverse as overhyped. Trade coverage shows that many brands kept experimenting, but often with narrower goals such as events, commerce or community tools rather than one giant shared world.

This history matters for Otherside because the same pattern could repeat. A famous brand, a large token sale and a bold vision can create a rush of interest. If the product is slow to ship or hard to use, interest can fade quickly. The lessons are not that the metaverse is dead or that every project is a scam. They are that user numbers, working features and sustainable economies matter more than launch-day excitement.

Readers who want to follow the sector should note how many projects from the first wave still have active users today. That count is often more revealing than a list of announcements from the same period.

Several factors made Otherside stand out at launch. Yuga Labs had a large and active community built around its ape-themed NFT collection. The project was tied to digital collectibles, which made ownership and trading central from the start. Its land sale was also widely watched because of its size and the token used to run it.

NFT ownership is a double-edged feature. It gives holders a clear stake and a reason to participate, but it also turns the project into a market. Prices can rise on expectations and fall when those expectations change. A world that is still being built can therefore be judged as an investment long before it is judged as a place to spend time.

Technology partners also drew attention. Reporting has connected the project with Improbable, a company known for large-scale simulation tools, which made some observers hopeful about the technical scope. Partnership news is only a starting point, though. The real test is whether those tools produce a stable, enjoyable experience for regular users.

When you evaluate attention around any metaverse project, separate three questions: is the brand strong, is the market active, and is the product working? A project can score well on the first two and still struggle on the third. Keeping those questions apart helps you avoid mistaking momentum for progress.

Before deciding whether Otherside could drive a new cycle, check what has been delivered. Useful signals include the following.

• Shipped features: Are the promised spaces, tools and social features live and working?
• Ongoing usage: Do people return regularly, and is there activity beyond buying and selling?
• Clear roadmap updates: Does the team explain delays and changes in plain language?
• Creator participation: Are independent builders making things, and are they staying?
• Economic design: Is it clear how value is created, and who benefits from it?
• Independent coverage: Do reporters who are not paid by the project explain what they found?

Usage data is the most important of these. A busy trading market can exist even when few people play or explore. Public blockchain explorers show transfers and wallet activity, which is useful, but they do not tell you whether the world is enjoyable or whether users are engaged.

It is also worth comparing a project against its own earlier promises. If the first roadmap said one thing and later updates describe a different scope, that is not automatically a problem, since many projects change direction. It is a reason to read the updates carefully and to ask what has been learned.

If you want to understand whether the metaverse is returning, it helps to look at other worlds that have been running for years. Each has a different model, so compare them carefully rather than treating them as one category.

• The Sandbox is a virtual gaming world where creators build experiences and players own land and assets. It runs on Polygon and Ethereum, with the SAND token. Check its current creator tools and active players before drawing conclusions.
• Upland is a city-builder where players buy and trade virtual properties linked to real street addresses. It uses the UPX token and is available on mobile and in browsers.
• Megaworld, formerly MegaCryptoPolis, is an earlier on-chain city-building game that is now rebranding. Its recent updates include plans involving AI agents, so read the latest announcements directly.
• Alien Worlds is a play-to-earn metaverse on WAX, where players mine and earn TLM tokens and NFTs. It is a useful example of how token rewards can drive activity and also how that activity can change when rewards shift.

These projects show that the metaverse idea has not disappeared, even if the first wave faded. They also show that the strongest examples tend to focus on specific experiences, such as building, playing games or creating content, rather than promising a single all-encompassing world.

When you compare these projects with Otherside, look at the same things: active users, creator activity, clarity of economics and how each team handles change.

Metaverse projects often sit at the intersection of gaming, collectibles and crypto, which means several kinds of risk overlap. Understanding them in advance helps you make calmer decisions.

• Market risk: NFT and token prices can fall sharply, sometimes even when a project appears to be growing.
• Liquidity risk: You may not find a buyer at a price you accept, especially for less popular assets.
• Project risk: Timelines slip, features change and some projects stop receiving updates.
• Smart contract risk: Code can contain bugs, and approvals given to contracts can be misused.
• Phishing risk: Fake websites, fake support accounts and malicious airdrops are common around popular names.

For security, a few habits reduce most of the danger. Use official links from the project's own documentation rather than links in messages. Keep your seed phrase offline and never type it into a website. Review what a transaction or signature permits before you approve it, and revoke token approvals you no longer need. Use a separate wallet for activity you do not fully trust.

None of this is financial advice. A metaverse asset is a risky purchase, and the right amount to spend depends on your own situation. If you are unsure, spend time watching and learning before committing money.

A new hype cycle would likely look different from the last one. It would probably start with a few specific products that people try, talk about and keep using, rather than with a vague promise about a single virtual world. It would also likely involve better tools for creators, clearer economics and more attention to everyday needs such as login, performance and support.

You can watch for these signs over the coming months. Look for regular updates that describe what shipped, not just what is planned. Notice whether independent creators are building and staying. Check whether non-crypto users are joining or whether activity is limited to existing holders. Watch how the team responds to criticism and setbacks, since that often reveals how a project will handle future problems.

It is also worth noticing what would not be a strong signal on its own. A spike in social posts, a new partnership announcement or a sudden jump in trading volume can all happen without any real change in usage. These events may still matter, but they should be weighed against product progress.

If Otherside or another project does help revive interest in the metaverse, it will most likely do so through steady delivery rather than one dramatic moment. Keep a simple checklist, revisit it every few months and let the evidence, not the excitement, guide your view.