Do Companies Need a Metaverse Voting Policy? | Insights

The previous 12 months has seen many companies entering into the metaverse, together with by shopping for land. For some metaverses, significantly ones which have a decentralized autonomous group (DAO), the possession of land, belongings and cryptocurrency comes with extra than simply digital actual property. Homeowners additionally obtain the facility to vote on points affecting that metaverse. So becoming a member of the metaverse makes these firms a voting member of the net group — and that may elevate authorized, moral and reputational issues. Each firm contemplating a land buy within the metaverse ought to ask itself first whether or not it wants a metaverse voting coverage.

Land, DAOs and Voting Rights

The obvious means through which an organization would possibly enter the metaverse is thru the acquisition of digital land. In metaverses equivalent to Decentraland and The Sandbox, NFTs (non-fungible tokens) decide possession of land. These metaverses designate a finite variety of land NFTs, every of which is related to a plot of digital land within the metaverse. After shopping for a plot of land, an organization can start to develop an expertise on the land as a part of a strategy to bring attention to a brand. This expertise may vary from a sport to an interactive product expertise.

Some metaverses are ruled by a DAO. DAOs handle sure elements of the metaverse through customers’ direct vote. In Decentraland, metaverse members are given Voting Power, or VP, based mostly on the quantity of Land, Mana (Decentraland’s native cryptocurrency) and Names that they personal. Numerous points are put to a vote, and it’s decided by a simple majority of Voting Power, topic to a minimal participation threshold (akin to shares and a quorum). Decentraland’s DAO is essential to its declare that its metaverse is “decentralized,” as a result of the facility to manipulate a lot of the metaverse will not be held by a single entity or proprietor, however is as a substitute held communally by its customers.

With the facility to vote, nevertheless, comes the duty to take positions on points. And taking positions on points may run counter to the businesses’ metaverse or broader enterprise targets. Contemplate the next conditions.

Public Voting and Reputational Dangers

In metaverses equivalent to Decentraland, votes should not non-public. Specifically, voting is no less than partly mediated by a device known as Snapshot, which publishes a log of blockchain addresses in addition to how every tackle voted on a specific difficulty. See, as an example, this vote in Snapshot so as to add a plot of land to Decentraland’s Factors of Curiosity; the Snapshot logs the vote, Voting Energy and pockets tackle of every voter. As a result of all of the votes are public, and landowners’ pockets addresses are additionally public, there will likely be a public, everlasting file of an organization’s voting historical past. All the points that an organization voted on, in addition to all the points that an organization didn’t vote on, may very well be scrutinized and lead to reputational hurt. The problems voted upon in Decentraland can oftentimes be political — a previous proposal, as an example, proposed to ban the title “Putin” — with fraught reputational penalties no matter how or whether or not an organization votes.

Aggressive Conflicts

Metaverse voting energy can be used to vote on points involving intellectual property enforcement matters, amongst different points that straight have an effect on an organization’s enterprise companions and opponents. Such votes may put an organization liable to, as an example, business-tort legal responsibility or antitrust violations. In different phrases, the facility to vote on points within the metaverse, the place votes and non-votes are public, can put an organization in all kinds of probably conflicting positions that it would not in any other case have exterior of the metaverse.

Growing a Metaverse Voting Policy

Given these dangers, firms ought to contemplate growing a metaverse voting coverage earlier than coming into the metaverse or voting in it. Totally different firms will want various things, however each firm ought to contemplate on the very least the next issues:

Its values and the way that can set a framework for the way it votes on points and what points it votes on (if any, see beneath).
A plan for the way it will publicly justify its votes and non-votes.
How upcoming DAO votes will likely be recognized, how voting choices will likely be labored up and permitted, and the one that will do the precise voting.

A lot of this coverage will rely on particulars of the DAO itself. If, as an example, a DAO has a really quick voting interval, it might make sense to develop much less formal procedures for figuring out how an organization votes. If a DAO has a really excessive voting threshold for the passage of a problem, and the corporate desires its votes to depend, it might contemplate adjusting its possession of property within the metaverse accordingly.

Ought to Companies Undertake a Non-Voting Policy?

With all of those concerns in play, an organization would possibly resolve that metaverse voting energy carries with it too many complications. Is it potential to easily not vote? There are a couple of totally different ways in which an organization may do that. First, an organization may personal land within the metaverse and easily develop an official coverage of non-voting — that’s, taking no place on any difficulty within the metaverse. Second, an organization may resolve to not take part as an proprietor within the metaverse — both via renting land within the metaverse or hiring a third-party contractor to create experiences within the metaverse for a price.

Within the first case, an organization would possibly be capable to keep away from some reputational harms related to voting by merely opting out, although non-voting doesn’t all the time keep away from controversy. In spite of everything, a land-owning non-voter nonetheless has the facility to make use of its votes to have an effect on outcomes within the metaverse. So an organization will nonetheless want a public relations technique to justify not voting.

Within the second case, avoiding controversy appears simpler as a result of an organization that merely rents land within the metaverse lacks the facility to vote within the metaverse, so it can’t be deemed accountable for its non-voting conduct in the best way {that a} non-voting proprietor might be. Then once more, there are additionally drawbacks to renting. As a renter, it isn’t potential to keep up a everlasting location within the metaverse — one thing that may very well be problematic in metaverses equivalent to Decentraland, the place parcels have discrete places, and site might be strategically vital. Furthermore, if the world exterior the metaverse is any indication, a renter nonetheless runs dangers based mostly on affiliation with a landowner and its voting actions.

Lastly, in each circumstances, an organization that opts for non-voting forgoes all the advantages that include using metaverse voting energy. These advantages should not be underestimated. In spite of everything, the intent of a DAO is to have a governance mechanism that has an actual impact on the members within the metaverse. An organization that makes use of its metaverse voting energy can reap the advantages of metaverse participation whereas avoiding potential harms by growing a well-thought-out coverage for voting within the metaverse.