Metaverses should remain decentralized

Imagine a world where you can chat together with friends on a tropical beach, party in the Palace of Versailles, fly or fight dragons. Envision companies holding board meetings on the moon with people from across the world, or the ability for engineers, artists and architects to conjure up hundreds of different prototypes from nothing. This is just a small sampling of what the metaverse might be.

Such an environment can only be achieved if the revolution is pioneered by a wide array of contributors, not just a small group of tech giants, to allow for a wide range of competition and customer choice, and, just as importantly, alleviate some of the health and privacy concerns the metaverse comes with. 

Compared to many technological revolutions of the past, the metaverse is a unique technological development: its primary component is social interaction. Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter routinely increase engagement at the expense of mental health. The only reason these companies are still around despite scandal after scandal is that they have a complete monopoly over online social interaction, with over 70% of social media usership dedicated to the largest five companies. This leaves disgruntled users with little other choice than to continue using these platforms.

If this anti-competitive trend continues into the metaverse, tech companies would have no reason not to use manipulative algorithms in the digital world — cashing in people’s happiness for money, promoting distrust and disinterest in the platform that would lead to a decrease in consumers, which in turn would lead to dwindling advancements in the platform. One of the key factors in the early internet’s success was that its diversity and breakneck competition led to widespread innovation — without a similar trend being nurtured in the metaverse, it’s likely to be nothing more than a passing trend. 

Large tech companies have been trying for years to consolidate the gaming industry, something which is now positioned to be a fundamental part of the metaverse. The vast majority of non-gaming companies, with Microsoft’s Xbox being a notable exception, have failed to branch out into the gaming scene. With Microsoft purchasing game companies left and right, and Meta’s version of the metaverse being extremely lacking in any entertainment aspect, the metaverse currently has a grim, impersonal future.

Without any of the high-octane attractions which science fiction often fantasizes about, like the hyper-realistic video games of “Ready Player One” or the worldwide simulation puzzles in “The Three Body Problem,” the metaverse is nothing but a glorified version of VRchat. If the entire metaverse is one company, people won’t be able to get the tailor-made experience they can access today through the standard internet. Even if virtual reality isn’t for everyone, it’s naïve to think that people will experience the metaverse in one homogeneous, standardized way. 

The solution to the problems of manipulation, mismanagement and general lack of variety in the metaverse is simple — similar to the internet, if the metaverse remains decentralized, an array of companies will be able to compete or collaborate for the best user experience.