The American computer scientist, who coined the term ‘virtual reality,’ cautions against online ‘psychological operatives’
Jaron Lanier, the eminent American computer scientist, composer and artist, is no stranger to skepticism around social media, but his current interpretations of its effects are becoming darker and his warnings more trenchant.
Lanier, a dreadlocked free-thinker credited with coining the term “virtual reality”, has long sounded dire sirens about the dangers of a world over-reliant on the internet and at the increasing mercy of tech lords, their social media platforms and those who work for them.
Avatars in Mark Zuckerberg’s Horizon have so far hovered above ground with bodies ending at waist
A year after changing its name, the company formerly known as Facebook has revealed its plans to give the metaverse legs – literally.
Mark Zuckerberg’s virtual reality project is getting a raft of additions including a $1,499 (£1,356) “pro” headset, integration with Microsoft Office and the sitcom The Office, and, yes, the ambulatory appendages.
Expo in east London shows how important augmented and virtual reality will be, as attractions move with the times
In the fight for theme park visitors the battle lines have been drawn – monster trucks, virtual reality zombie warfare and “smellscaping”, just thankfully not all at the same time.
And while there was a sombre atmosphere around parts of London as tens of thousands lined up to pay their respects to the Queen, there were 10,000 more gathered in a convention centre in East London experiencing the future of the theme park.
The Venice film festival section Venice Immersive is dedicated to ‘extended reality’, where visitors can explore new narrative worlds. Our intrepid correspondent gets lost
I’m at the Venice film festival, in a hyper-real city square, surrounded by lapping blue water and tourists who move in mysterious ways. There is a ginger cat here called Dorian who walks on his hind legs and speaks with a French accent. Dorian is showing us how to walk and turn and jump and crouch. He’s concerned by the tourist who can’t get herself off the ground. Dorian explains that if we ever get lost we should press the “respawn” button which will put us right back where we began. He sighs heavily and says: “Sooner or later everybody gets lost.”
It is the fear of getting lost – this terror of the unknown – that scares many punters away from Venice Immersive, which sits behind the big Mussolini-era casino that hosts the film festival proper. That and the boat ride, the headsets, the schedule, the stress. The movies on the main programme: they’re largely a known quantity. Whereas the “extended reality” exhibits out on VI island are almost too much to process; we lack even the grammar and the language to frame them. To misquote Bob Dylan, something is happening here – but no one, it seems, can definitively say what it is.
The Melbourne international film festival installation transports viewers to the Daintree Rainforest. Its creators share how they built an entire ecosystem
Ben Joseph Andrews and Emma Roberts stopped all the clocks the moment they arrived in the Daintree Rainforest to start a five month research trip for their epic, 48-hour, virtual reality film Gondwana. Arriving in the wet season of 2019, “we scrambled our phones, our computers. We embraced the cycles of time that occur in the forest,” says Andrews, the film’s director. “That letting go and surrendering gave us time to listen, and gain a deep appreciation of the multi-layered nature of that environment.”
Their experience in the 180m-year-old rainforest, which literally re-shaped their sense of time, has never left them. Now, the pair hope to immerse audiences in a similarly perspective-altering experience with the installation of Gondwana at ACMI as part of Melbourne’s international film festival, which will screen over 48 hours from Thursday to Saturday.
Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh Using a VR headset and an empty stage, Tim Crouch puts his audience at one remove from the Shakespeare play to comment on the world and theatre itself
On the back wall there is a notice saying: “Please rinse and sanitise.” Over to the right a poster from Equity, the union for performers and creative practitioners, talks about “creating safe spaces”. It includes the number for a harassment helpline. There is no decor and the house lights are up. “It’s just this,” says Tim Crouch on his empty stage. “It’s just us.”
Or just us and the virtual reality headset the writer and actor insists on wearing. The gizmo is his portal to another theatre, one grander and more ornate than our own, where a production of King Lear is at its midway point.
Venture capitalist Matthew Ball’s new book explores the three-dimensional virtual world that is set to supersede the net. What might this alternative digital reality have in store for users?
Venture capitalist Matthew Ball first wrote about the metaverse in 2018 and his essays have become essential reading for entrepreneurs and tech watchers who are attempting to understand or profit from the network Mark Zuckerberg and many others are anticipating will supersede the internet. Ball is former head of strategy at Amazon Studios and his first book, The Metaverse: How It Will Revolutionize Everything, is published later in July.
What is the metaverse? It is a persistent network of 3D spaces. Almost everything online today – all applications, digital operating systems, webpages – works on common protocols and technology that connects them. The metaverse is a 3D elevation of the online world, which spans augmented reality – unseen virtual simulations in the world around us – as well as much of consumer leisure and socialising.
From Platform 9¾ in Harry Potter to Bill and Ted’s phone booth, a new exhibition about portals explores the ways we’ll soon be moving around the metaverse
With its hidden doors, folding walls and clever optical tricks with mirrors and light-wells, Sir John Soane’s Museum feels like just the kind of place you might stumble across a portal to another dimension. Moving from one room to the next in this wildly reimagined London townhouse is never as straightforward as stepping through a simple doorway. The eponymous neoclassical architect and collector saw to it that the thresholds between the different parts of his house-museum were elaborate spaces in themselves, topped with lanterns and lined with mirrors and windows, offering views up, down and through his multi-levelled maze of antique treasures.
Step through one opening, expecting another stately drawing room, and you find yourself standing on a bridge, suspended in a three-storey “sepulchral chamber”, where a glazed dome brings light down to an Egyptian sarcophagus in the basement. Pull back the folding panels in the picture room, and you discover a statue of a nymph in a hidden recess, floating above a void that plunges into another sculpture-encrusted nook below the floor. Each carefully choreographed transition, each theatrical reveal, is designed to transport the visitor to a parallel universe, whether it be the ancient ruins of Giambattista Piranesi’s Paestum, the demonic halls of John Milton’s Pandemonium, or the drawings of imaginary cities made up of fragments of Soane’s own buildings.
Two hundred years later, Soane’s richly layered labyrinth has been extended with a whole new virtual dimension. Following a period of intensive research during the pandemic, experimental architectural duo Space Popular have unveiled the Portal Galleries, a beguiling immersive exhibition that explores the history and future of portals – a topic for which there could be no better setting. Using a combination of virtual reality films and physical exhibits, alongside drawings from the collection, the show charts the role of magical thresholds in fiction, film, television and gaming, and speculates on the fundamental role they will play in the coming virtual world.
“Portals are going to be everywhere,” says Fredrik Hellberg, co-founder of Space Popular with Lara Lesmes. “We are convinced they will be the main infrastructure of the rest of this century, just as ubiquitous as the car was to the last. To avoid future mistakes, we should start to get prepared now.”
The concept of virtual transport infrastructure might be quite a challenge to get your head around. But Hellberg and Lesmes are adamant that it is the next pressing design challenge, as our “scrolls become strolls”, and the internet takes on an ever more spatial dimension.
The term “decentralization” has become a significant and reiterated buzzword throughout the Web3 space as it is immediately paired with being favourable. Often, blockchain protocols, applications, and networks utilize the term to establish successful marketing tactics. This helps to attract capital and users to an ecosystem.
The problem here is that many of web3’s top projects are not fully decentralized. To investigate this, decentralization must be defined and separated from a distributed system. Many cryptocurrency protocols and Web3 projects are distributed – but not all are decentralized.
Defining Decentralization
Decentralization refers to a form of organizational structure in which decision-making power is delegated from top management to middle or lower-sitting parties. In the case of Web3 protocols, decision-making power is given from founders and developers to the protocol’s supporters, users, node operators, and/or liquidity providers.
This differs from a distributed system. In a distributed system, the system itself is not concentrated but rather spread out across multiple locations and entities – most commonly nodes securing a network. This has nothing to do with decision-making, it just relates to the network infrastructure itself.
This is a very common misconception in many different projects’ functioning tokenomics and governance models. To achieve decentralization, it is not enough to simply distribute a portion of the tokens to the community or public. Those tokens must also carry an equivalent voting power to sufficiently give the community a respected voice within the Web3 project.
Investigating Core Web3 Protocols
To investigate which Web3 protocols are the most decentralized, it is necessary to measure the level of decentralization versus the level of distribution.
Organizations/protocols can be rated in the following matrix:
There are four key quadrants that emerge from the above matrix. They are:
Concentrated & Centralized
Distributed but Centralized
Concentrated but Decentralized
Distributed & Decentralized
Factors & Variables
It is important to acknowledge that the amount of variables necessary to accurately classify protocols is extremely high. Distribution relates to how accessible & widespread a project’s base asset is – generally its cryptocurrency or token. In this study, any entities that are not tokenized and rely on shares or privatization are classified separately as concentrated & centralized.
The more valuable a protocol’s market cap and the number of unique holders, the higher the reward level of distribution on the matrix.
Decentralization is much trickier as it combines multiple dynamic elements of a protocol, including:
Token Distribution – This relates not just to the number of unique wallets for a protocol but the number of unique, real-life holders of a project. Keep in mind that a single entity can control multiple wallets. So for example, Web3 projects that launched with pre-mined tokens for a group of seed investors, token distribution is naturally lower.
Governance & Decision-Making – True decentralization lies with the amount of decision-making power the average user has over a Web3 protocol. A key point to emphasize here – participation in governance is not sufficient enough by itself to make a protocol decentralized. For most protocols, token ownership is directly related to voting power. An unequal distribution makes for a centralized governance model.
Protocol Functionality – For many protocols, governance isn’t necessarily immensely important to functionality and the average user’s ownership of a token. If a protocol is immutable, meaning the core functionality cannot be changed through governance, it has a higher degree of decentralization versus a project that can be controlled entirely through a token.
Web3 protocols can be broken down into one of three core categories. Those categories are:
Centralized
Decentralized
In the Middle
Centralized
Projects that fall here are generally lacking adoption and protocol governance is typically highly skewed towards large holders (generally early backers). Many projects, such as a number of Layer 1 smart contract platforms, were initially funded through privatized token sales. This allowed venture capitalist firms, hedge funds, and institutional investors to obtain a significant share of the outstanding tokens of these projects prior to public launch.
Additionally, limits in governance typically go along with these private token sales. A popular form of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus is that of Delegated-PoS. This means that users holding a token can choose to be delegated through validators on the blockchain, generally being the largest token holders running nodes. This allows the majority of users to “participate” in governance but gives them little direct influence over the protocol.
This is similar to direct governance models that delegate voting power based on the number of tokens staked. So, the holders with the greatest amount of tokens (generally early backers, developers, etc.) have considerably more voting power than the average user.
There are quite a few Web3 protocols that fall into this category, including:
Solana (SOL)
NEAR Protocol (NEAR)
Algorand (ALGO)
MakerDAO (MKR)
Internet Computer (ICP)
Within the centralized category also falls centralized exchanges (CEXs) for obvious reasons. There is separation between Coinbase and other exchanges like Binance solely due to Coinbase not offering an actual token.
Web3 protocols that are more decentralized give the users more control over how they utilize the protocol and to what decision-making power they have over its functionality. The two assets here that are the most obvious are Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin is the world’s first peer-to-peer electronic payment network and is secured through Proof-of-Work consensus requiring computational power to mine new bitcoins.
Ethereum is the world’s most highly distributed and decentralized blockchain smart contract network – the original Layer 1. With thousands of nodes participating in securing the network and thousands more applications already built on top of its blockchain, Ethereum is the best example within the crypto economy of a decentralized Web3 protocol.
Other projects that function with a high degree of decentralization – regardless of overall adoption – are the following:
Chainlink (LINK)
The Graph (GRT)
THORChain (RUNE)
Aave (AAVE)
Ampleforth (AMPL)
Uniswap (UNI)
Polygon (MATIC)
In the Middle
There are a number of projects that fall right into the middle in terms of their level of decentralization. There are a large number of variables that come into play, making it more difficult to classify these projects wholeheartedly one way or the other.
The majority of these projects utilized private funding to get started but are building out decentralized functionality or assisting ecosystem development catering to decentralized functions for everyday users. Project age, overall adoption, and market dynamics all play a role in these projects.
Examples of projects in the middle include:
Polkadot (DOT)
Cardano (ADA)
Avalanche (AVAX)
Axie Infinity (AXS)
Decentraland (MANA)
Final Analysis
Web3 projects have been placed on the original matrix above in relation to the following discussed factors:
Accessibility
Adoption
Token Distribution
Protocol Functionality
Governance Mechanisms
The following represents the Web3 matrix in terms of distribution versus decentralization:
Keep in mind that due to the extreme amount of variables, it is difficult to accurately gauge each and every project from the same lens. Also, the above matrix is not accurate to scale. Consider projects grouped together to be similar in terms of distribution and/or decentralization.
Overall, the majority of web3 protocols are working towards or actively contributing to the greater Web3/cryptoeconomic space. Some protocols are doing this in a much more decentralized way than others, such as Ethereum’s high rate of node participation versus Algorand’s more centralized governance mechanism.
Web3 as a whole has a substantial number of actively contributing projects that hold appropriate levels of decentralization over the previous web2 iteration of the internet.
Every so often Meta hosts an “Inside the Lab” roundtable where it showcases early technology it’s currently working on, usually on a very specific research field. Today’s was Inside the Lab: Passing the Visual Turing Test focusing on a very important part of a virtual reality (VR) headset’s hardware, the display. Trying to tackle a range of challenges, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Chief Scientist of Reality Labs, Michael Abrash and several others unveiled three prototype headsets currently being developed.
Meta – Butterscotch Prototype. Image credit: Meta
Prototyping quite often relies on trying to solve a singular problem, be that resolution, weight, size, durability, clarity or any number of other issues. Whilst the Meta Quest 2 does offer a good VR experience, it’s by no means perfect, with areas that can always be improved upon.
Butterscotch
Ensuring a user’s eye sees the best image possible is of utmost importance and Meta is trying to solve that in a number of ways. The first VR prototype shown was Butterscotch, looking like a heavily modded Oculus Rift.
This was built to address VR resolution, more specifically providing retinal resolution in VR. With 60 pixels per degree (ppd) being the benchmark – one which TVs and mobile phones have long surpassed – so that the headset can depict the 20/20 line on an eye chart. “This is the latest of our retinal resolution prototypes, and it gets us to near retinal resolution in VR — 55 pixels per degree. And that’s two and a half times the resolution of Quest 2,” says Abrash on Butterscotch.
While you might expect this to have been achieved via a new panel this wasn’t the case because: “there are currently no display panels that support anything close to retinal resolution for the full field of view of VR headsets today,” Abrash continues. “So what the Butterscotch team did was they shrank the field of view to about half that of a Quest 2 and developed a new hybrid lens that would fully resolve the higher resolution.”
Meta Reality Labs Eye Chart Comparison. Image credit: Meta
As you can see from the above images, Butterscotch does achieve excellent clarity but it’s still a bulky, far from a finished prototype.
Starburst
Even bigger and bulkier than Butterscotch is Starburst. With fans on the top and a pair of side handles, Starburst is Reality Labs’ prototype HDR VR headset. Yes, you read that right, this is what High Dynamic Range in a VR headset currently looks like.
HDR will be a crucial addition as it helps to increase that sense of realism and depth to an image. To do this VR headsets need lots of light to play with, with brightness referred to as nits. Meta’s peak brightness goal is 10,000 nits but as TVs have yet to achieve this number – Samsung’s 65Q9 range can hit 2,000 nits in HDR – that goal is still a way off. When it comes to current VR levels the Quest 2 maxes out at 100 nits.
Meta – Starburst Research Prototype. Image credit: Meta
Packed into the Starburst prototype is a bright lamp behind the LCD panels. This helps Starburst reach an impressive 20,000 nits, creating what is likely one of the first 3D HDR VR displays. You probably wouldn’t want to use it for long though: “to be clear, [Starburst is] wildly impractical in this first generation for anything that you’d actually ship in a product. But we’re using it to test and for further studies so we can get a sense of what the experience feels like,” says Zuckerberg.
Holocake 2
As the last two headset prototypes look many years away how about something which looks slightly more production-ready. Described by Zuckerberg as: “the thinnest and lightest VR headset that we’ve ever built,” the Holocake 2 certainly looks the part of a futuristic device and it’s already capable of running PC VR games!
That might be impressive in a prototype headset but what’s even more remarkable is Holocake 2’s thin profile. VR headsets are thick because the displays and lenses need to be a certain distance apart so that your eyes can properly focus on the imagery. To achieve this slim design Meta has developed two new technologies; a flat holographic lens and polarized reflection.
Meta – Holocake 2 Research Prototype. Image credit: Meta
When it comes to the holographic lens Zuckerberg explains: “Holographs are basically recordings of what happens when light hits something. So just like a holograph is much flatter than the thing itself, holographic optics are much flatter than the lenses that they model, but they affect incoming light in pretty much the same way. So it’s a pretty neat hack.”
As for the polarized reflection, this method of optical folding reduces the space between the display panel and the lens. Both of these technologies have been combined with specialized lasers rather than LEDs as the light source. There’s only one problem, finding a laser with the performant size and price that you need for consumer VR headsets. “We’ll need to do a lot of engineering to achieve a consumer viable laser that meets our specs — that’s safe, low-cost, and efficient and that can fit in a slim VR headset,” Abrash notes. “As of today, the jury is still out on finding a suitable laser source.”
Meta Reality Labs Lens Comparison. Image credit: Meta
If any of these prototypes look familiar its because Butterscotch and Holocake were teased by Zuckerberg and CTO Andrew “Boz” Bosworth in 2021. No sign of the Meta Quest prototype previously mentioned.
Mirror Lake
Finally, there’s Mirror Lake. This isn’t even a prototype at this stage merely a research concept the Display Systems Research (DSR) team at Reality Labs rustled up. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking, coming up with a ski goggle-like form factor combining all the varifocal (Half-Dome) and eye-tracking and other tech Reality Labs has been working on.
Meta – Mirror Lake concept. Image credit: Meta
And there you have it, all the prototype VR headsets Meta has currently revealed and the challenges it’s trying to solve. While Holocake 2 might be on the near horizon the next headset from Meta is Project Cambria, expected to arrive later this year. For continued updates on the latest Meta VR devices, keep reading gmw3.
