AR smart glasses with displays now widely available in UK but must be connected to a smartphone to work
The first widely available augmented reality glasses have hit the UK high street, putting TV shows, movies and games on a big virtual screen just in front of your eyes. But while the Nreal Air are the first of their type on the shelves, they are limited in what consumers can do with them.
Many firms have tried to be the first to make AR glasses the next generation of technology, not least Google with its ill-fated Glass back in 2013. Snapchat and Facebook have made attempts, both sporting cameras for recording others, but so far there have been no glasses for consumers with displays for the wearer to view. Until now.
Decentralization refers to the distribution of decision-making power from a centralized entity to a distributed network of entities. This is a common theme within the cryptoeconomy & blockchain applications.
There are a number of different technologies that can assist in the functional decentralization of the metaverse space. Some of the most prominent examples are:
Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs)
Edge Computing
Microservice Governance
The level of decentralization can vary depending on what is being distributed and how it is being distributed within a system. This will differ within specific organizations or companies versus critical infrastructure and networks.
Many metaverse protocols within the cryptoeconomy (Decentraland, The Sandbox, etc.) utilize a type of distributed ledger technology (DLT) called a blockchain. However, not all DLTs are blockchains. This results in a high rate of variability in terms of decentralization even if the system itself is distributed.
Why Does the Metaverse Have to be Decentralized?
For the metaverse to truly flourish and remain accessible to everyone, it must be a highly decentralized system without any gatekeepers. This is what allowed the internet to grow into a unique, highly engaging, globally accessible interface.
Centralization raises several issues for a system of global scale. Consider the internet – the wealth of exchangeable information is priceless for humanity. Nearly anyone is able to access the internet and receive a high-level amount of information on any topic.
What is the Difference Between Distributed and Decentralized Systems?
A common misconception is that distributed systems and decentralized systems are interchangeable terms. This is actually not the case – while decentralized systems (i.e. blockchains) are a type of distributed system, not all distributed systems are decentralized.
In addition to blockchains, here are three other examples of DLTs:
Hashgraph
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAC)
Holochain
Distributed Ledger Technologies
At its core, a DLT is a cryptographically secured record of consensus with a verifiable, validated trail. That trail is validated by a network of nodes. A DLT network can either vary in its level of decentralization. Designated rights on the networks between nodes can fall in a range from centralized to decentralized, meaning that not all nodes on the network must be equal.
Certain nodes on a distributed network may have much more prominent permissions than other nodes. For certain organizations, this is favourable as it allows for greater participation on the network without the organization having to give up control.
Blockchain Networks
Comparatively, a blockchain consists of unchangeable data pods referred to as blocks. These blocks are validated by nodes on the network and added to the previous chain, serving as a specific way to implement a DLT.
The major distinction between blockchains and other types of distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) is that within a broad DLT network, every node does not necessarily need to have all of the information from the ledger. For a blockchain network, every single node has access to all of the information from the ledger.
This is an important distinction to keep in mind when considering external companies like Meta and their own ambitions to build out a metaverse space. In Mark Zuckerberg’s 2021 Founder’s Letter, he explicitly states that privacy, safety, open standards, & interoperability need to be “part of the metaverse from day one” but offers no direct insight as to how Meta will provide these qualities in its own product.
For the purposes of decentralization & interoperability, it is exceedingly important that every participating node on a DLT network has access to and understands all of the available information. This promotes the highest degree of transparency and participation necessary to achieve a robust, decentralized, metaverse space.
Closing Analysis
It is important to counter the narrative that simply being distributed is equitable to being decentralized. This is completely untrue. The metaverse must be distributed AND decentralized to promote the healthiest space possible for the world to build upon. This reigns true for both individuals and brands/businesses.
Web3 and the emerging metaverse have some challenging obstacles ahead to ensure this vision becomes reality. Examples include problems with censorship & accessibility due to centralized internet service providers or simply the costs associated with building innovative computational technologies to actually power such a demanding system.
Nevertheless, what is highly achievable today is the implementation of decentralized distributed systems that allow for the free-flow of information to anyone who wishes to participate. This is what blockchain technologies add to the emerging metaverse.
Researchers in France used virtual reality to test the impact of tweaks made to urban settings
Having bright colours and greenery in our cities can make people happier and calmer, according to an unusual experiment involving virtual reality headsets.
A team of researchers at the University of Lille, in France, used VR to test how volunteers reacted to variations of a minimalist concrete, glass and metal urban landscape. The 36 participants walked on the spot in a laboratory wearing a VR headset with eye trackers, and researchers tweaked their surroundings, adding combinations of vegetation, as well as bright yellow and pink colours, and contrasting, angular patterns on the path.
Whether on a flat-screen or in virtual reality (VR), the idea of a metaverse is an all-encompassing digital world. And if films like The Lawnmower Man or Ready Player One have taught us anything you’ll need a big rig to strap into to truly appreciate the experience. So Chinese technology company StepVR has done just that, unveiling its Gates01 omnidirectional motion system.
Gates01, image credit: STEPVR
Better known in China for its free-roam VR esports brand, Future Battle, StepVR has designed the Gates01 device to effectively be a gate into any VR metaverse. Covering an area of approximately 3m2 – so not exactly suitable for home VR – the Gates01 system comprises a harness, custom VR headset and an omnidirectional treadmill allowing players to walk and run as naturally as possible.
The company says that the Gate01 will: “restore the sense of vision, hearing, touch, smell, and vestibular balance in the virtual world,” so players will be able to experience haptic feedback as well as other “hyper-reality” functionality previously seen in venues like The VOID.
Actual tech specifics have yet to be detailed, such as the omnidirectional floor. From the demonstration video, it looks like users will have to wear specialised shoes (or shoe covers) to walk on the active floor. Whether players will be able to jump and crouch is another matter entirely – you might be able to hang by the looks of that frame.
Gates01. Image credit: StepVR
Founded in 2013, StepVR’s Future Battle franchise comprises 140 location-based entertainment (LBE) venues across China, each one facilitating up to 10-player free roam sessions. The company states that 60 partner stores are still to be opened and that 22% of its partners have opened a second store.
StepVR expects to release Gates01 for entertainment venues in Korea, Japan, Singapore, the Middle East, North America, and Europe during October. A consumer version which will be lighter and 50% smaller is slated to arrive sometime in 2023. Currently, StepVR hasn’t revealed a price or supported content.
One of the key challenges to a fully functioning metaverse is that of interoperability. Within platforms such as Decentraland or The Sandbox, there is coherence between that of the virtual worlds, users, and external blockchain networks. This is internal interoperability.
However, the problem here is that external interoperability between world-hosting applications is less clear. For off-chain platforms and applications, this bridge is even less visible. There have slowly been partnerships and integrations between off and on-chain applications, such as Minecraft joining forces with blockchain applications.
This is only the first step towards true metaversal interoperability. There are some key barriers to achieving interoperability for the metaverse.
They are:
Technology – The precise applications and computer programming solutions necessary to unite on & off-chain platforms within a single, open metaverse. Exactly what computer engineering breakthroughs are needed.
Economics – Aligning the appropriate economic functions & incentives that attracts users to move across worlds through the metaverse rather than staying within base applications or platforms.
Persistent Connectivity – Ensuring the metaverse is always open & accessible is vital to achieving a growing user base. The metaverse must have uptime like the internet today while remaining decentralized and open so that anyone in the world can participate.
There are a number of areas, including both hardware and software, that must-see technological improvements or adoption of existing technologies that have not yet experienced widespread use in the market.
Some examples of components needing interoperability are:
In a full metaverse, it would be extremely inefficient and troublesome if users had to create a new wallet or avatar for all the different worlds that they may want to participate in. For example, say a user wanted to buy land in Decentraland while maintaining a profile through an external P2E gaming title. Having two different identities could get confusing to maintain. Now consider having to create a new avatar for every single platform in a full metaverse.
Comparatively, the internet (web2) has suffered in part from this challenge. Users engaged on multiple websites and platforms must store login information for dozens of different accounts. Solutions like Facebook, Google, and email sign-ins have assisted users with this issue, but it isn’t perfect.
Cryptocurrencies have also had this issue in the past. Each user would have to store the information for various wallets compatible with each cryptocurrency each user wants to invest in. Now, solutions like Metamask have offered cryptocurrency users the ability to store many different cryptocurrencies in a single wallet – regardless of the number of different blockchain networks that user is engaged in.
The metaverse faces this issue as well, albeit it is more closely aligned with the adoption of cryptocurrency wallet technologies. A user should be able to create a single avatar linked to their wallet of choice to transverse the metaverse space.
APIs, CPUs, & Hardware
As platforms are developed, there are many different APIs powering different metaverse projects. External APIs can be utilized by different projects for different purposes and open source projects can work, learn, & build collaboratively.
Additionally, advances in computing power and ability are necessary to run a connected metaverse space. Advances in quantum computing have made headway in this area, helping to push forward major advances in rendering speeds & processing power. Modern computers simply are not sufficient enough to carry the load of such a demanding space.
Storage & Database Solutions
One of the most important parts of the metaverse is that of data storage. Centralized databases simply will not be appropriate for the metaverse as the freedom of data is extremely vital. Therefore, decentralized data storage solutions will be a major functioning part of a true metaverse.
Solutions to global file sharing and database storage have emerged in recent years. For instance, blockchain-powered storage solutions such as Filecoin or Storj have assisted the space in utilizing decentralized storage where users can exchange surplus storage space for a fee.
This aspect of the metaverse is arguably the furthest along. Assets in this circumstance would refer to cryptocurrencies, collectables, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other currencies or securities that would have value within a digital space like the metaverse. This is integral to the purchasing and trading of digital LAND within the metaverse.
NFTs and cryptocurrencies have been at the heart of decentralized virtual world hosts so far for on-chain applications. Additionally, the creation of bridges between on and off-chain assets like Germany’s breakthroughs assists in the future interoperability between blockchain applications & external platforms.
Aligning Economic Incentives
While technological interoperability is arguably the most difficult aspect of metaversal interoperability, proper meta-economics also requires a high degree of interoperability. This plays directly into the ability for digital assets to have bridging potential to external applications.
Tech giants such as Meta (Facebook) building out their own metaverse spaces could split on and off-chain users if there is no way for digital assets to be converted into usable assets for Meta. In a way, this is the barrier between blockchain and traditional financial markets today in terms of the cryptocurrency market. It is worth noting that many big tech companies are adopting principles of Web3 technology, but it is only a start.
Additionally, users are generally considered to be rational thinking and opportunistic. This is extractable from game theory. If there is no incentive to participate in external applications, then users will never migrate out of their home apps. This obviously creates competition within the market to fight for capital and user growth, but it is not all necessarily on projects.
Should users ever choose to transverse the metaverse space between projects, it must be:
Efficient to move between applications
Affordable to the user in terms of fees
Have an opportunity cost that incentives dynamic movement across the metaverse
These three points are also true for attracting actual users to the metaverse in the first place, including that of individuals and organizations. Within capitalist economies, entities are profit-seeking. If there is a reasonable expectation that those entities can join & transverse the metaverse in a monetarily productive way, they will.
Accessibility & Durability of the Metaverse
For the metaverse to work and interoperability to remain a feature, the metaverse’s base functionality must always remain accessible to all users and have unlimited uptime. These same qualities can be applied to the modern day internet.
If the internet itself was not accessible or had catastrophic issues with uptime, the digital space would never work. Neither institutions nor individuals would invest time, money, or resources into something that is unreliable or inaccessible. Problems with accessibility can and do plague the internet geographically.
Some areas of the world – like parts of the United States – simply do not have the infrastructure required to have reliable internet access. This is something that the metaverse will also face, just at an elevated level due to the higher demand it requires in terms of infrastructure capabilities.
Additionally, centralized ISPs provide a barrier to entry for users wishing to access the metaverse in authoritative parts of the world. Corporations, governments, and other centralized entities can’t have immediate control over access or durability of the metaverse for it to remain truly open to all. The fight for net neutrality was indicative of this for the internet despite it being repealed in 2018 and never re-implemented.
Interoperability would ensure that even when individual applications or protocols go down, users within the metaverse will still have access to all other applications, guaranteeing that the space will always have some form of functionality.
Final Analysis
A fully interoperable metaverse is still many years away. Advancements are needed in many different aspects of the metaverse, including:
Technology & Infrastructure
Economics
Accessibility
The largest barrier to the metaverse resides in the ability of the world to innovate and upgrade infrastructure, something that will be costly moving forward, especially for end-users. The crypto economy has helped to provide missing economic incentives, helping to fuel such a mass interest from external organizations surrounding the metaverse.
In a perfect world, the metaverse will end up being an open-source, highly durable base layer of what would essentially be the three-dimensional internet. Websites and applications would come to life in a highly connected, interoperable space.
According to Citi Financial, the metaverse economy may be worth up to $13 trillion by 2030. So, while a true metaverse is potentially years to decades away, there is a sizable amount of investment and interest happening right now to add to its progress.
Tower Vaults, London A thrilling live adventure is marred by moments of bewildering VR in this immersive voyage back to 1605
It may set Harry Potter fans’ hearts aflutter to know that Tom Felton – best known as Draco Malfo – is playing Guy Fawkes in this immersive experience written by Danny Robins and directed by Hannah Price. He is part of the digital cast though, appearing on our VR headsets, even if the show is partly sold on his starry presence.
It turns out this production, which takes us into labyrinthine vaults adjacent to the Tower of London, has a more-than-able live cast playing Catholics and Protestants, plotters, spies, double agents and upholders of the crown, to immerse us in Fawkes’ tumultuous underground world.
New computers, iPad overhaul and expanded Messages app on the cards, with AR glasses a possibility
Apple is to reveal details of the software updates coming to its phones, tablets and computers, in the company’s annual worldwide developers’ conference (WWDC).
But while new computers, an expanded Messages app, and an overhaul of the iPad’s software to make it more like a laptop are all on the cards, the biggest question mark on Monday is whether Apple will show any evidence of its forthcoming augmented reality – or AR – glasses.
Quantum computing is an emerging technology field that allows for computers to solve hyper-complex problems that are impossible on modern-day machines.
The concept is leveraging the roots and properties of quantum mechanics – the fundamental theory in physics that describes the physical properties of reality at subatomic levels.
Serious headway has been made over the last decade in determining the properties and mechanics of reality at the subatomic level, properties that differ significantly from classical physics and have actually led to a failure in the Standard Model.
Nevertheless, the exponential growth rate in technology has allowed for deeper computation to be conducted at the quantum level, leading the world towards fully capable quantum computers.
Major players that are involved in the research and development of quantum computing include many heavy hitters in tech, such as:
IBM
Intel
NVIDIA
Microsoft
Google
As the idea and momentum behind the metaverse continues to take hold, leaders within the tech sector such as Intel’s Raja Koduri stated in an interview with Quartz in December 2021 that the metaverse requires computer chips to have 1,000x the power to support the demands of a true metaverse.
Quantum computing is the natural progression in technological development necessary to achieve these requirements.
Present Day Computing Power
In 1965, Gordon Moore released a paper that famously predicted the exponential growth of transistors that could be packed into an integrated circuit – saying that this number would roughly double every 18 months.
This prediction has rung true for decades now, with the growth in computational power rising considerably. The world has seen an increase in the number of transistors per integrated circuit, rising from roughly 2,300 to over 50 billion transistors in the world’s most capable computers – an increase of over 2 billion percent. The problem here is that exponential growth cannot increase forever and Moore’s Law is no different. We have already begun to observe the slowdown in computing growth.
There are multiple elements working against the continued hypergrowth of computational power. The first of these is the physical limitation of integrated circuit sizes. The technology can only go so small before it is impossible to shrink any further. Only so many transistors can be packed onto an ever-increasingly small space.
The other key limitation that computers are facing now is the physical limitations of reality, or better put, the speed of light. In essence, the electrons powering computers can only move so fast through matter. This means that computational speeds have a literal speed limit through traditional computing.
This leads directly into the motivations behind the rise of quantum computing and how researchers are hopeful it could provide a workaround.
Overview of Quantum Computing
Quantum computing is introducing a sophisticated new method in making parallel calculations using computing units called qubits. In traditional computing, bits are either on or off, one or zero. Qubits have the ability to exist in an “in between” state rather than a distinct on or off, allowing quantum computers to be exponentially faster at complex calculations.
This “in between” state is known in quantum physics as superposition. For particles, superposition means that one proton could simultaneously exist in two different states at once. This plays into the thought experiment behind Schrödinger’s cat & the Copenhagen Interpretation. The concept has also often been applied to photons (particles of light) acting as both a particle and a wave. This was physically demonstrated in the double slit experiment.
Additionally, another important concept to note here is that of quantum entanglement. This is when two or more particles are in a single quantum state. For instance, using a particle accelerator, scientists were able to demonstrate this concept physically. Take two different protons that are in a state of quantum entanglement. Because they are entangled, any changes to one proton will instantaneously create the exact same effect in the opposite proton, no matter the distance between them. So, two particles that are entangled could theoretically share information instantaneously, quite literally outpacing the speed of light.
This is precisely what quantum computing is intending to leverage. A future quantum computer utilizing highly conductive nanomaterials (such as graphene or carbon nanotubes) could use the properties of quantum mechanics (superposition and entanglement) to solve hyper complex computational problems that traditional computers could never solve.
Quantum Computing & the Metaverse
The sheer demand of computational power and processing speeds that a full metaverse would require is unfathomable in terms of today’s computing limitations. Running a global metaverse is nothing short of literally powering a world-wide simulation. The metaverse will be tasked with powering a seemingly infinite number of worlds across the entire globe for billions of users in a three dimensional, highly interactive virtual space.
Thus, coming back around to Koduri’s comments about needing 1,000x the power, to truly build out the metaverse requires a high level of innovation in other fields. Luckily, the demand for computing power is increasing at a profound rate which is leading to a high level of investment into the concept of quantum computing and nanotechnology.
A number of powerful technology companies have been conducting research on the issue, including:
Increasing complexity in the applications and networks we develop requires an evolution in both computational abilities but also security. Unfortunately, quantum computing unlocks new problems for cryptographic hash functions that power the world’s leading cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. Bitcoin’s security model relies on the computations necessary to mine blocks and use the network to be difficult to solve. Quantum computers would be able to solve these hash problems exponentially faster than normal machines.
Thus, Quantum computers powering the metaverse will have to leverage quantum-resistant security protocols and blockchains. For the metaverse to be successful and have longevity, security of the system must be considered a critical priority.
Summary
There are a high number of complex innovations that must occur for the metaverse to develop in the way many are envisioning. Quantum computing is arguably one of the most critical to long term metaverse development. At this point in modern history, humanity is experiencing rapid expansions in computer science and quantum mechanics that is allowing for research to be conducted and progress to be made.
As Microsoft says, quantum mechanics is the underlying “operating system” of the universe and is being used here to break through physical barriers in computing. It serves as a good model for something like the metaverse – nature requires immensely complex chemical & biological reactions, material formations, & other processes that take place through a seemingly infinite amount of individual data points (starting with plancks all the way up through atoms, particles, etc). The metaverse will require a similar level of complexity that quantum computers will undoubtedly help us achieve in the future.
Chances are still that if you ask a family member, friend or contact what their thoughts are on the metaverse, Facebook’s name is likely to come up. Remarks on Zuckerberg’s viability as a digital leader might even follow. But whether we like it or not, social media’s biggest mogul is still regarded by many as an unofficial showrunner in the emerging space, using the company’s rebrand as a way to tightly covet the term “metaverse” and all it encompasses.
Unsurprisingly, Meta’s recent announcement that digital creators on Horizon Worlds (the company’s dedicated metaverse application) will be subjected to a 47.5% cut has been met with public backlash. It’s easy to be angered by these figures if we compare them to significantly lower cuts and creator fees placed by other outlets (such as NFT marketplace OpenSea or decentralised metaverse platforms Decentraland and The Sandbox). After all, many of the favoured tenets of a more decentralised internet include fairer compensation and a more enticing economy for creators — features that Zuckerberg himself has even promised.
This precarious announcement seems to have come straight after a rough first quarter of the year, where we’ve seen Meta lose upwards of $2.9 billion USD and experience significant blowback in the wake of its many controversies. As we dive into a greater breakdown of Meta’s new fee structure for creators, reflect on the social media giant’s most recent quarter and take a deeper glimpse into its penchant for capitalistic gain, we’ll explain why we think Meta’s sizeable virtual asset cut is destined to fail.
How will Meta’s fee structure work?
With Horizon Worlds, Meta is aiming to build an economy and open up metaverse commerce — creating something that can be compared to the systems currently available in platforms such as Rec Room and Roblox.
According to Meta’s official statement: “The metaverse — by nature of its not being limited by physical space — will bring a new level of creativity and open up new opportunities for the next generation of creators and businesses to pursue their passions and create livelihoods.” Moreover, the company insists that: “Creators and entrepreneurs will have more freedom to find a business model that works for them… For example, someone could make and sell attachable accessories for a fashion world or offer paid access to a new part of a world.”
Interoperability and cross-app capability are still a far cry away, however. So far, it seems like items will only be compatible with the worlds in which they’ve originated, all while still being positioned to help creators monetise their items on the platform. “What the creators can do as part of building their world [is to] attach behaviours that trigger monetisation, which means that we actually don’t know all the things they can do to monetise,” Vivek Sharma, Meta’s VP of Horizon, recently told CNET.
While creators will be offered the opportunity to make and sell assets in Meta’s Horizon Worlds platform, their earnings will be cut short significantly — as the company plans to take an overall cut of up to 47.5% on each transaction. Included in this cut is a 30% “hardware platform fee” for any sales made through the Meta Quest Store, coupled with a 17.5% fee charged by Horizon Worlds. To also incentivise engagement with VR, Meta claims that it will be adding a monthly performance bonus for creators. Similar to Instagram’s current monetisation strategy, this approach will follow a unique set of metrics.
While Meta cites these new rules as simply “tests”, they’ve also suggested that these approaches could continue to change and evolve. While there is a promise that assets will eventually be made more interoperable and capable of being carried across apps (Sharma alleges that Meta “wants to do this in a way that will scale eventually to cross worlds, into shared spaces and beyond”), it’s still quite unclear how the marketplace will be managed or what this roadmap might look like — particularly when it comes to figuring out whether items can one day live beyond Meta’s parameters.
In all, this news has both angered and excited those in the Web3 community. One Twitter user wrote: “If Meta wants 47.5% of NFT sales, they’ve gotta talk to the IRS — because I don’t even have that after taxes.”
Sharma has since responded to the friction, defending the sizeable cut as a “pretty competitive rate in the market.” He also added: “We believe in the other platforms being able to have their share.”
A look back at a difficult first quarter
Earlier this year, Meta experienced a historic plunge in its stock price — with over $230 billion USD in its market value erased (the largest-ever one-day loss for any US-based company in history). Due to privacy changes made by Apple, the company also readied itself for another continued loss in the billions. The slump in stock price also caused Mark Zuckerberg to lose a whopping $30 billion in personal wealth.
In contrast with other Web3 platforms, Meta also failed to launch its own cryptocurrency and achieve a “deep compatibility” with blockchain. With a goal of empowering “billions of people” and hoping that 1.7 billion users would be able to create digital wallets, too much resistance from regulators led to the project ultimately failing and being shelved. Since then, however, reports have revealed that Meta hasn’t given up on entering the crypto space — having filed 8 trademark applications earlier this year (including applications for crypto tokens, crypto trading, blockchain software, wallets and crypto exchanges).
In 2022, Meta isn’t the only Big Tech company to come under pressure. As policies have tightened at the US Federal Reserve to decrease the industry’s rich valuations following years of ultra-low interest rates, the NASDAQ — which is primarily made up of tech and other growth stocks — fell by more than 9% in January. This was the biggest monthly drop since COVID-19 first struck the market in March 2020.
And while Big Tech companies were credited with driving gains for the wider market throughout the course of the pandemic, analysts believe that the market has now shifted. According to Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network: “There’s a general sense that what’s been moving the market higher is not going to take us to the next level. The question is where is the next growth engine coming from.”
How does this stack up against Web3 traders?
As more metaverse worlds continue to rise in popularity, this raises an important question: should these worlds be open or closed? To clarify, a closed metaverse can be defined as one governed by a central authority (like Meta) that takes ownership of lands and items sold within its platform. On the other hand, an open (or decentralised) metaverse is one that allows users to buy and own metaverse land and items as NFTs, in addition to an ability to exchange them for cryptocurrency.
Comparatively, decentralised platforms and marketplaces appear to take much smaller cuts from creators. OpenSea, the leading NFT marketplace in Web3, currently only takes a 2.5% cut from each transaction — whereby creators usually take anywhere between 2.5% and 7.5%. LooksRare, another popular NFT marketplace, only takes a meagre 2% — while BinanceNFT charges only 1%.
While critical of Meta’s large virtual asset cut, many Web3 community members have also seen this move as an unintended push towards decentralisation. “Facebook charging 47.5% for every NFT sale is the best thing to ever happen to us,” one person tweeted after the news was released, implying that Meta’s massive fee would ironically help steer more users towards open, decentralised platforms like Decentraland and The Sandbox.
Other users, however, have expressed clear anger at the social media giant’s announcement, calling it “the enemy of decentralisation and freedom in Web3.” Following Big Tech’s reign of increased profit during the course of the pandemic (Facebook reported an increase of 10% from targeted advertising during COVID-19 lockdowns), it’s hard not to see this move as doubly harmful to online creators and small businesses who may seek out opportunities in Web3.
Prioritising growth over other concerns
If we take a long, hard look back at Facebook’s history and online trajectory (including its encounters throughout its pre-Meta days), it isn’t out of left-field to suggest that the social media giant has been primarily fuelled by greed and profit.
At the time of writing, Zuckerberg owns the four most downloaded mobile apps in the last decade: Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. Sources have long since accused Zuckerberg of seeing company acquisition as a means of neutralising potential competition and preventing users from ditching Facebook for alternative platforms. For instance, the social media tycoon’s initial acquisition of Instagram followed a general likening to Facebook’s features and revocation of other leaders’ rights (including those of company founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, who eventually left the platform after Zuckerberg took control).
In late 2021, internal documents known as “The Facebook Papers” were published by an international consortium of news outlets, following their access to the materials once they were made available by U.S. Congress (and now-revered whistleblower Frances Haugen). This assemblage of documents, according to the Financial Times, included “thousands of pages of leaked documents [painting] a damaging picture of a company that has prioritised growth” over other concerns.
The Associated Press, another news outlet reporting on the matter, summarised the documents as such: “These complaints cover a range of topics, from its efforts to continue growing its audience, to how its platforms might harm children, to its alleged role in inciting political violence.”
Following Haugen’s release of the documents, Jessica J. Gonzalez, co-CEO of advocacy group Free Press Action, remarked that the whistleblower revelations “confirm what many of us have been sounding the alarm about for years” — that the real problem behind Zuckerberg’s empire is actually the business model in which he’s used as a means of governing his platform all along. One that subsists almost entirely on greed and capitalistic gain.
Even as far back as 2010, Zuckerberg began touting his belief that “privacy was no longer a social norm”. And in the following years, Facebook users have been unwittingly trading their privacy for a seemingly more enhanced online experience. Studies have suggested that an estimated 4 in 10 users use social media accounts to follow their favourite products or brands, while 28% of online users claim that targeted ads on social media have effectively brought new services or products to their attention.
On the other side of the curtain, our online data has been regularly harvested and fed to algorithms — serving as raw material for advertisers to make better predictions about what will generate the highest levels of profit. It’s a process called surveillance capitalism — and it’s allowed Big Tech companies to claim our online activity and turn it into their own proprietary knowledge for capitalist gain. In other words, our online personas have, in essence, become products themselves.
Author and tech analyst Shoshanna Zuboff refers to surveillance capitalism as “the dominant economic institution of our time”. Furthermore, “this system successfully mediates nearly every aspect of human engagement with digital information” and “today all apps and software, no matter how benign they appear, are designed to maximise data collection.”
This brings us to another important question: if a company should have no shame in monetising the very marrow it can milk from its users, then what’s stopping it from doing the same thing with any assets they produce?
Why is Meta’s approach the wrong one?
Let’s circle back to the main subject — which is Meta’s proposed virtual asset cut for creators in Horizon Worlds. How might this approach be setting the company up for failure?
For one, many will know that Meta’s big cut isn’t the first instance of Big Tech greedily clawing funds away from small creators. For years now, Apple has come under fire (even from Mark Zuckerberg himself) for charging developers a 30% fee for in-app purchases made through its dedicated App Store.
Funnily enough, Zuckerberg has even raised Apple’s App Store fee as an example of what he claims he doesn’t want to repeat with metaverse creators. “As we build for the metaverse, we’re focused on unlocking opportunities for creators to make money from their work,” he said back in November 2021. “The 30% fees that Apple takes on transactions make it harder to do that, so we’re updating our subscriptions product so now creators can earn more.” In typical fashion, however, Zuckerberg has done just about anything but place the best interests of creators at the forefront of his roadmap.
Like many of its other visions, Meta’s promise to build the metaverse has also been largely rhetorical and not fully clear. The company’s rebranding, name change and acquisition of Oculus have proven Zuckerberg’s seriousness about growing the VR ecosystem and developing a metaverse-building strategy. However, massive losses to the company’s Reality Labs Division and relatively low adoption rates of VR still indicate that the company isn’t quite dominating the space.
A steep decline in Facebook use has also been a recent concern, with a reported 45% of users allegedly dropping from the platform. With competitor apps (not yet acquired) such as TikTok dominating the market — particularly with Gen Z users — Meta appears to be losing any hope of having a dedicated user base that will seamlessly migrate into the metaverse.
Other moves have also indicated Meta’s lack of clarity in winning the metaverse category. It recently shut down a project to build its own VR/AR operating system, instead choosing to build on the Android platform. The company is also opting to use Qualcomm chips in its upcoming augmented reality glasses, as opposed to utilising its own internal design. Unlike Apple, the company hasn’t embraced vertical integration and carved out its own adoption of particular hardware and chips that will ensure maximum performance. And so far, Meta has been unwilling to open its operating system to other manufacturers — an advantage that has historically allowed Microsoft to dominate the PC market over the last few decades.
While the Meta Quest 2 is currently the best-selling VR headset at the time of writing, this success is forecasted to change once other companies start releasing their own dedicated devices. Apple is likely to produce a high-performance headset that will be equipped with LiDAR technology — a feature that may allow it to one day dominate the headset market.
So, is Meta a premium supplier of technology? Or will it serve as a trailblazing metaverse platform? The problem is that we still don’t know. Combine all of these shortcomings with a very steep fee and you have a particularly muddy strategy that’s likely to fail.
Other major tech leaders have also voiced their lack of belief in Meta as a leader in the emerging metaverse space. Reggie Fils-Aime, former president of Nintendo of America Inc., recently spoke about his stance on Meta in an interview with Bloomberg: “Facebook itself is not an innovative company,” he’s bluntly stated. “They have either acquired interesting things like Oculus and Instagram, or they’ve been a fast follower of people’s ideas. I don’t think their current definition will be successful.” Conversely, Fils-Aime has also expressed his belief that smaller companies will play a much larger role in creating successful metaverse worlds.
Keeping in line with Fils-Aime’s projection, Web3 presents a more creator-focused and community-driven approach to online content creation. Allowing creators to have greater ownership over their digital goods will let them move away from expensive, centralised platforms that are no longer serving them.
For at least half a decade, Medium has felt like a paradise for writers, readers and content creators everywhere. Launched by Twitter founder Evan Williams, Medium was announced as “a new place on the Internet where people [could] share ideas and stories that are longer than 140 characters and not just for friends.” Laden with a significant range of stories — ranging from manifestos to personal tales — Medium quickly built up momentum and became a place for writers to “find the right audience for whatever [they] had to say.”
This ease of access, combined with the ability to quickly and efficiently post content, has made Medium a favourite by many authors and companies seeking a publishing or content marketing platform. However, the company has also been heavily criticised for restricting how writers can monetise and publish their work, despite marketing itself as an open platform.
Mirror.xyz, the first instance of a decentralised writing platform, was newly launched in December of 2020. What are the benefits of a decentralised publishing platform and how might its mechanisms change how writers are compensated? As part of our ongoing “vs” series, let’s take a closer look at the business models of both Medium and its new Web3 counterpart, Mirror.xyz — and highlight how Web3 technology is helping writers to gain better control over their revenue streams.
Medium: an effective message
As a hybrid blog and publishing platform, Medium enables both amateur and professional writers to share their work without any alleged limitations to their content. Currently accounting for over 54 million users and over 100 million users per month, it now sits as a leader in online blogging and publishing. For a decade now, Medium has aimed to host the best articles from various different fields. At the time of writing, the platform is heavily used for both unique and republished content.
Medium’s original mission has been to give writers from any corner of the world the opportunity to publish their writing — obscured only by a soft paywall of $5 a month or $50 a year. If we take into account the site’s current user base and $600 million valuation (including a recent raise of $30 million USD in late 2021), we can see that this model has been met with great success.
Writers on Medium are given the opportunity to freely publish their work on the site — however, those who want to earn money from their content are restricted to the site’s Partner Program. While top writers and publishers can earn upwards of $50,000 per month, those starting out on the platform are likely to see much more meagre earnings (we’re talking closer to $25). Writers are also given bonuses if they reach the platform’s list of top creators, meaning that an author’s success on the site largely hinges on how well they can grow their following and push out consistent content.
The trouble with Medium
While Medium has offered writers, journalists and publications a seemingly more unrestrained platform, it still comes with its fair share of cons.
As is the case with all Web2 platforms, writers no longer own their content once it is published to Medium’s grounds. Should the platform ever decide to delete a user’s work, shut down an account or ban a user from posting, there’s very little wiggle room for them to fight back. Of course, this raises the potential for authors to lose all control over their work and their audience should they land on the wrong side of the platform.
And while the possibility of this happening may be unlikely, this dynamic still highlights the futility that we have previously seen on other large social media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. In 2018, we also saw Medium abruptly cancel the memberships of 21 of its subscription publisher partners.
Another common complaint about Medium is the number of restrictions associated with the site’s Partner Program. With the Medium Partner Program, writers can make money on the platform using two methods: a) to monetise their work based on total member reading time or b) to earn money by referring users to become paid subscribers. Payments are calculated based on the total time that paid subscribers spend reading articles, as well as on per-month subscriber revenue. This means that only writers with higher member reading times will be paid more generously.
Another downside to this business model is that only users with paid stories get any sort of promotion on the site. Given that it can be difficult for writers to get enough attention that their work actually makes them any money, it presents an uphill battle for writers to make a sizeable income from publishing on Medium in general.
On top of that, writers on Medium are also not allowed to promote anything inside their paid posts. This means that other forms of monetisation (such as adding links to products, adding affiliate links or embedding subscription forms to grow an online following) are strictly prohibited on the platform. Couple this with the fact that a writer’s posts no longer belong to them once they’re posted on Medium — and we can easily gather that the mechanisms of the site are strictly designed to benefit the platform, not its publishers.
While Medium also promotes itself as a platform that accepts content from all ends of the spectrum, this is also not necessarily true. Authors of content that doesn’t make it to the platform’s front page will find it challenging to gain significant traction on the site — especially those outside of Google or large tech firms (such as YCombinator and Hackernoon), which are responsible for referring the most traffic to the site. It’s also notable that the only SEO control that users have over their work is content-based — making this system largely disadvantageous to those looking to publish work about niche industries or topics.
Mirror.xyz: a decentralised counterpart
Launched in 2020 and founded by Denis Nazarov, former partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Mirror is a DAO that is both built and run by its contributors. cryptocurrency, rather than typical transactions. As a decentralised and crypto-based platform built on the Ethereum blockchain, writers are able to crowdfund their projects by selling them as NFTs.
When Mirror.xyz first launched, writers were required to obtain the platform’s native $Write token — which could be earned by partaking in the platform’s “$Write Race”, a weekly contest that helps determine users’ membership. Once users were in possession of the token, they could begin crowdfunding their projects and rallying support from backers. However, in late 2021, Mirror’s team announced that the platform would be open to anyone with an Ethereum address and wallet.
Mirror’s team has also further commented on the benefits of a blockchain-enabled publishing platform: “Through a decentralised, user-owned, crypto-based network, Mirror’s publishing platform revolutionises the way we express, share and monetise our thoughts.”
Like Medium, Mirror offers an important component to the online publishing world — an engaged community. As noted in one of the company’s official blog posts: “There are many DAOs with vibrant communities and significant treasuries, but they are not recognised as first-class entities by the Web2 ecosystem of creative and developer tools.” As a solution, “Mirror bridges a Web3 entity into Web2 distribution of ideas.”
Since its launch, industry leaders (such as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin) and a series of successful DAOs have used Mirror to publish their content. One such example of a successful crowdfunding campaign on the platform includes a documentary about the development of Ethereum, where a total of 1036 ETH was raised (the current equivalent of over $2 million USD).
What’s even more notable is the monetisation strategy offered by Mirror. As the platform is built on the Ethereum blockchain, it provides native support for any crypto-native business models around tokens and NFTs. The platform’s Entry Editions feature, for instance, allows for different works to be sold at different price points — all while also allowing writers to sell their work without having to put it behind a paywall.
Will Mirror.xyz enable greater ownership and security for writers?
Unlike larger, more commercial platforms like Medium, content on Mirror.xyz is stored on a decentralised blockchain, rather than a series of company servers. As such, publishers are able to wield greater control and security over their content. Writers who publish their content on the platform also become co-owners of their work, ensuring that contributors’ interests are placed at the forefront of their roadmap.
Instead of logging in with a username and password, writers can sign up to Mirror using their Ethereum wallet. This means that they hold full ownership of their account, which will live on an open blockchain as opposed to a centralised database. Anything published on Mirror is also cryptographically signed by users and housed on permanently decentralised storage, meaning that any data is protected from corruption or modification from malicious parties or faulty service providers. Also, because this storage is permanent, the longevity and integrity of any content are ensured via blockchain technology.
What’s even better is that cross-functionality has been introduced to those who do use Medium, Substack or other Web2 publishing platforms — with the added option for writers to import their blogs from other websites with ease. Should writers be hesitant to transfer their work onto a Web3 platform, the outlet has already been created with this transition in mind.
Final thoughts
While Mirror is still a relatively new platform, we’ve already seen several examples of how Web3 platforms are empowering those in creative industries. Audius, as we’ve previously spotlighted, has already helped several musicians sell their work as NFTs and rake in greater profits. Other platforms have also risen to the fore to help writers monetise their work, including Publish0x, Steemit and Bounty0x.
With the goal of helping writers share their stories, securely monetise their work and build a community around their content, Mirror is steadily revolutionising the process of digital publishing. Users have more control over how they monetise their work and more leeway to publish exactly what they want inside their posts.
Like many Web2 platforms, Medium isn’t hesitant to place restrictions on small accounts, ads inside content or content that it doesn’t like. If the platform doesn’t make money, it seems to have no issue with making further changes to make money — even if said changes disadvantage its authors. In a creator’s economy, platforms like Mirror are continuing to show how writers and creators can thrive when they are not beholden to their mediums — and where users can truly read, write and own.
