The Muse Dilemma: Meta's High-Stakes Gamble on Agentic Fees

For years, Meta has operated on a relatively simple premise: sell the attention of the user to the highest bidder. But with the rollout of Muse, Meta is signaling a pivot toward a transactional economy. As first reported by Wired, CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently claimed that the agentic AI tool—which allows users to automate online tasks—is becoming a significant force in shopping, with millions of users spending an average of over $200 per purchase. More provocatively, Zuckerberg predicted that charging businesses a fee for transactions facilitated by Muse would eventually generate more revenue than Meta's massive advertising business.

As a fintech observer, I find this projection staggering. Zuckerberg isn't just pitching a new feature; he is pitching a fundamental shift in how Meta extracts value from the internet. However, the real story here isn't the technical capability of Muse—it is whether Meta can actually monetize these agents through a fee structure that doesn't cannibalize its own ad revenue or alienate the enterprise partners it is currently trying to soothe.

Currently, there is a glaring disconnect between Meta's optimism and the reality reported by the companies that actually fulfill the orders. While Zuckerberg noted that over 10 million people in the US and Canada have activated Muse, and over 25 percent are using it for shopping, the corporate response has been a collective shrug. According to Wired, executives across roughly 50 companies—including those in travel, food, and internet services—have largely dismissed the immediate disruption. DoorDash described orders from agents as being in the "hundreds," T-Mobile stated they have seen nothing of significance, and Hilton called bookings "insignificant." In India, Eternal estimated agentic commerce to be "close to zero."

Even the banking and insurance sectors, where the threat of automated subscription cancellations looms, report little to no impact. Life Time Group, Public Storage, and Hartford Insurance Group all indicated they have seen zero cancellations driven by agents. Ally Financial characterized the activity as "quite low."

If the volume is this low, Zuckerberg's dream of a transaction-fee empire looks premature. But the danger isn't just the current lack of volume; it's the friction that a fee-based model introduces to the partner relationship. InterContinental Hotels CEO Elie Maalouf highlighted this tension, noting in conversations with Wired that he is taking a cautious approach in talks with Meta and has not reached any conclusions on what a collaboration might look like.

Meta is already attempting to build a bridge through partnerships with 10 retailers, including Gap, Best Buy, and Walmart. But if Meta charges a fee for every transaction Muse facilitates, it creates a perverse incentive. Does Meta prioritize the merchant that pays the lowest fee, or the one that provides the best value to the user? If Muse encourages aggressive comparison shopping, it could ignite price wars that squeeze corporate profits—a fear already noted by Wall Street.

Furthermore, the operational burden of "agent-readiness" falls on the partner. Chipotle's chief digital officer, Arlie Sisson, revealed that the restaurant chain is tidying up its website code because Muse struggled with applying loyalty discounts and ordering after-hours. While Sisson noted that Muse's debut increased agentic orders by a single-digit percentage, the effort required to optimize is significant. When you combine technical labor with Meta's plan to charge a transaction fee, the value proposition for the merchant erodes.

There is also the risk of platform warfare. Amazon initially blocked Muse, citing a preference for its own Alexa shopping agent, though it recently acknowledged it anticipates working with outside agents. Insurify similarly blocked Muse before reversing course after implementing technology to ensure accurate offers. If the dominant players view Muse as a parasitic layer that takes a cut of the margin without adding proportional value, they will simply block the agent.

Finally, security remains a liability. Bank of America's chief client care officer, Ashley Ross, recently warned customers that they remain responsible for any activity resulting from sharing login credentials with AI assistants. If a Muse-facilitated transaction goes wrong, the friction will not be absorbed by Meta; it will be felt by the bank and the consumer.

Meta is betting that the convenience of agentic commerce will be so overwhelming that businesses will gladly pay a toll. But in the world of payments, the toll-collector is often the first person the merchant tries to cut out. If Zuckerberg wants to replace the ad-revenue model, he must prove that Muse creates enough new demand to offset the fee—a claim that, according to reports from eBay, DoorDash, and T-Mobile, is far from being proven.