Content uploaded by Marko Orel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marko Orel on Dec 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ELEK TROTEHN IŠKI V ESTN IK 85(5): 272-278, 2018
ORIGI NAL SCIE NTIF IC P APER
Decentralising Virtual Reality
Marko Orel¹, Jože Guna²
¹ University of Economics, Faculty of Business Administration, nám. W. Churchilla 1938/4, 130 67 Praha 3, Czech Republic
² University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Tržaška 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
E-mail: marko.orel@vse.cz
Abstract. Socialising in virtual reality environments is becoming increasingly popular. Research outlines the pos-
sibility of using the blockchain technology in order to create a peer-to-peer network for the virtual reality environ-
ment. By doing so, this paper considers the possibilities of decentralising the virtual reality space which was pre-
viously accessed through centralised platforms. There is a growing support for the claim that participation between
peers is higher on a decentralised virtual reality platform compared to participation on a centralised platform. This
study draws on ethnographic research of a digital community formed around a decentralised virtual reality platform
and observes their group activities and engagements. The paper finds that individuals tend to show a high activity
when it comes to co-designing virtual worlds and puts forward three concepts to discuss positive and negative
angles of the decentralised virtual reality, i.e. co-creation of the content, visuals and governance. This implication
is supported by an observation that users of the decentralised virtual reality platform co-build virtual ecosystems
without a centralised authority.
Keywords: Virtual reality, collaboration, decentralisation, blockchain, Ethereum network
Decentralizacija navidezne resničnosti
Prispevek predstavi možnost uporabe tehnologij veriženja po-
datkovnih blokov v kombinaciji z vzpostavitvijo decentralizi-
rane platforme za dostop do navidezne resničnosti. Z etnograf-
sko študijo se je preučilo frekventnost participacije ter vzposta-
vitev omrežij, ko vodijo v potrditev ter realizacijo kolektivno
izbranih skupnostnih vsebin. Prispevek tako potrdi predpo-
stavko, da decentraliziranost navidezno resničnostnih okolij
spodbuja k so-oblikovanju novih, od spodaj navzgor vzpostav-
ljenih ekosistemov.
1 INTRODUCTION
From the Stephenson’s fictional Metaverse and Cline’s
Oasis to Altspace and Second Life’s spinoff Sansar, these
collective virtually shared spaces create different realities
by offering individuals to collectively experience and
share immersive virtual environments. The simultaneous
telepresence, a sensation of being immersed in a
mediated environment and not where the physical body
is located is becoming a popular way to experience the
alternative reality [1, 2]. The virtual reality as an
interactive computer-generated experience therefore
does not only open the possibilities to share and co-
experience immersive environments, but also
dematerialises consumption and decreases the
complexities of learning new skills [3]. Altogether, it
changes the way we interact with each other.
Markets today offer a handful of centralised social
virtual reality environments such as Facebook Spaces,
AltSpaceVR, and the aforementioned Sansar. These
privately owned and managed platforms have a
centralised system that narrates how individuals should
interact when immersed into a selected reality. Their
participation in co-building immersive worlds and co-
designing their content are thus limited. Because of the
rising demand, several emerging social virtual reality
platforms are seen experimenting with decentralised
ownership and democratising the content creation.
New technologies such as the blockchain enable the
development of decentralised ecosystems that are not
controlled by a central authority and where individuals
are offered a sandbox for escapism in an unregulated
virtual reality. Decentraland (DCL), a newly emerged
decentralised virtual reality platform and a social space
powered by the Ethereum blockchain is studied in order
to set a new perspective on the possibilities brought by
decentralisation. This interdisciplinary research thus
focuses on the DCL community activities and processes
on the blockchain that are being carried out in order to
construct a fragmented alternative reality to be owned by
its users.
1.1 Methodological framework
For the purpose of this research paper, we have deployed
a qualitative method of the online ethnography in order
to understand the development of virtual communities
which form a DCL project and a collaborative interaction
between its peers. The research has been divided into
three phases, starting with an initial exploration and data
Received 22 June 2018
Accepted 24 August 2018
272 OREL, GUNA
collection, continuing with a data comparison and
finishing with collected a data analysis.
The initial exploration of the subject was performed
during a period of a three-month participant observation
between December 2017 and February 2018, while the
data were collected between March and April 2018. The
final descriptive analysis was carried out in May 2018.
The online ethnography was selected on the ground belief
that digital communities co-create a shared culture
enabling them to co-build virtual ecosystems.
Participating as passive observers on the main
community communication platform RocketChat, we
found highly engaged community members discussing
building processes and plans for the DCL development.
The number of participants was steadily rising, starting
from 7620 in December 2017 and more than doubling to
16585 by April 2018. All participants were members of
one group entitled “#general”, where general discussions
about randomized topics were taking place. The
discussions were running in the form of posted treads.
There were 357 posts on an average daily basis. The
participants were also members of other groups evolving
around the DLC community districts where more focus-
orientated debates were taking place, allowing us to
follow direct proposals and discussions. The least but not
the last, we have also taken part in more closed and
selective chat group such as “#district_leadership” with a
total of 77 members, ranging from the DLC community
district leaders to the DLC founders. Observing this
group has allowed us to gain an insight in both the content
development process and dealing with technical
challenges that we will describe in the next chapter.
In using this medium, we aim at a deeper immersion
into the community, encircling the inner social processes
which can be considered as causes for the development
of various collaborative activities between other
members of the DCL community. Communication
between the participating members has been transcripted
and analysed. The method of the online ethnography has
been selected due to the novelty of the researched field
and nonexistence of related publications that would
explore the future of decentralisation, development of the
virtual reality platforms without central authority and
impact on its users.
The main motivation behind the research is to observe
sequences of activities and engagements of the DCL
community members. We have studied how these
individuals group together in order to developed
community districts that will represent different areas
within the DCL metaverse. The districts are being co-
developed by active members of the DCL community
who not only co-construct visual and content aspects of
selected areas, but also take steps in order to propose the
governance framework. Although the DCL community
chat system is publicly open and DCL operates on a
public and globally accessible blockchain, ethics have
been considered while carrying out the research. The risk
of influencing the observed community channels has
been minimised by not exposing the research role to
community, but only to one of the community managers.
Steps such as participating in chat discussions or
deliberately influencing decisions have been avoided. In
order to respect a user privacy – although DCL remains
in the public domain, and, individuals are using their
nicknames to hide their identities – this paper is not using
any names or indications which would otherwise expose
peers to a potential manipulation, interception, or
republication of their activities.
First, we will discuss technical challenges related to
the virtual reality, namely the problems around
immersiveness that would impair perspectives of social
VR and the needed interaction between peers.
Afterwards, DCL will be explored from the perspective
of functionality on the blockchain and the use of the
ERC-20 and ERC-721 crypto tokens that enable users to
do transparent market transactions and manipulate with
the DCL content. Secondly, we will explore different
aspects of co-engineering the virtual reality space with
decentralised districts and observe how individuals
engage in interactions with other community members in
order to generate a content. One of the more proactive
user-led DCL areas, the Aetheria District, has been
selected as a focus point based on the measurement of the
frequency of interactivity amongst peers in order to
build-up a use case.
2 IMMERSIVE VIRTUAL REALITY REALISM
The peripersonal space can be seen as the first margin
between the surface of our body and the external world
and needs to be contextualised and understood as an
interpersonal space, which is influenced by the emotional
characteristics of stimuli [4]. The level of the visual
stimuli experienced is the core of visual realism which
induces the participant presence in immersive virtual
environments. This presence allows individuals to
identify with their virtual bodies and perceive the virtual
environment with a subjective sense of being in the place
as a parallel reality [5].
In the context of the virtual reality, immersion stands
for the extent to which high fidelity physical inputs such
as sound waves and light patterns are provided to various
sensory modalities such as vision, touch and audition in
order to generate illusion of the reality in each. This
immersion is therefore not only one-dimensional, but can
be divided into a tactical, strategic, narrative, spatial,
psychological and sensory immersion [6]. The first
obstruction that DCL and similar social VR applications
will need to overcome is the sensory immersion.
However, there is a number of technical limitations
which obstruct individuals from perceiving and
interacting with virtual worlds, and performing
spontaneous or coordinated activities with others to
DECENTRALISING VIRTUAL REALITY 273
consider. There are two requirements to meet – the
available system in the form of a virtual reality headset
needs to be able to isolate the human perception from
influences of the real world and stimulate the human
perception in order to achieve both the audio-visual and
psychological illusion of a non-existing environment that
can be perceived as real [7].
Modern HMDs (head mounted displays) can broadly
be categorised as tethered, mobile and standalone. While
mobile devices such as Samsung Gear VR or Google
Daydream are commonly used in a combination with
smartphones, their processing power is limited and
results in both visual limitations and non-accurate
position tracking. The standalone headsets such as
Oculus GO for example are also limited in this way in the
context of an insufficient processing power. While the
standalone headsets and mobile devices mainly use the
3DOF motion tracking, the tethered devices such as
Oculus Rift and HTC Vive allow users to take the
advantage of the 6DOF motion tracking and experience
translation along the x, y, z axes and rotation about them.
This enables individuals not only a complete freedom of
movement, but also of a virtual environment perception
that they are engaging with.
As insufficiently immersive environments may not
engage the user nor offer a fully realistic social
experience, completely replicated and digitalized
environments would need a technological solution for
improvement. This improvement would offer benefits in
addition to freedom of movement, including the
possibilities of conformance of human vision, physical
interaction with a haptic feedback and 3d audio that
would replicate natural positioning of sounds relative to
people and objects [8]. Achieving an immersive reality
will be dependent on the technological progress. As the
social VR environments such as DCL will simulate real-
world events and societal interactions with other peers
and AI-powered boots, achieving an immersive reality
will be dependent on the technological progress.
3 DECENTRALAND – A TECHNOLOGICAL
DYSTOPIA
DCL represents a traversable digitalised world powered
by the Ethereum blockchain. As the blockchain is a peer-
to-peer network that represents a virtual foundation for a
range of interactions, it has a potential in coordinating the
human activity on a mass scale. Furthermore, it can be
understood as a system enabling the user-centric
paradigm of transparency, equity and decentralisation
[9].
Ethereum represents an open software platform based
on a distributed public blockchain which enables
building and deployment of decentralised applications. A
computer code that can facilitate the content, various
shares, money and property is delivered in the form of
smart contracts which become a self-operating software
on the Ethereum blockchain. Because of this, the
blockchain is virtually unalterable, making it difficult to
manipulate to facilitate fraud, interference and
censorship. This allows developers to design, create, and
deploy decentralised applications that are not controlled
by any internal entity having the wherewithal to make
changes to the data [10]. By using the Ethereum
blockchain, DCL allows users to co-create, design, and
monetise or source an open content within its immersed
three-dimensional virtual world. As such, the DCL
protocol is comprised of three layers – the Consensus
layer that allows tracking the plot ownership and content,
the Land content layer that contains a content description
through a hash of the file content, and finally, the real-
time layer that enables individual users to connect and
interact with each other [11].
As the platform has been decentralised through a
crowd sale of its own native currency, DCL allows its
users to have full control on co-designing and co-building
a visual content on virtual plots, of which they have
gained ownership. The DCL ERC-20 crypto currency,
known as MANA, is not limited only to an external
purchase of virtual plots of land but can also be
exchanged for various goods and services within the
virtual reality space. This allows DCL the development
of a platform economy wherein users can create records
of ownerships through the public Ethereum blockchain
[12]. The native token therefore allows the
implementation of a process where individuals can
impose a claim over parcels within a DCL metaverse.
This can be done with the purchase of non-fungible
(NFT) ERC-721 tokens called LAND that represent each
parcel in the DCL virtual world with x and y coordinates.
In contrast with the standard fungible tokens, the non-
fungible tokens such as LAND are cryptographically
unique and their rareness may result in a high value
depending on the amount of the visual traffic it
experiences due to its location in the DCL metaverse.
They can also be altered and thus visualised, have
specific attributes and interactions may be performed in
them. This makes the LAND tokens fit in multi-user DCL
metaverses as they can be altered according to the user
preferences and traded by changing the digitally recorded
ownership. LAND token signatures in the form of the x
and y coordinates are linked with the individual’s crypto
wallet address in order to keep track of the ownership,
but also to hide individual’s identity.
Transferring the ownership of the LAND tokens to
individuals has taken the control of the DCL metaverse
from its creators and made the DCL future infrastructure
and governance completely decentralised. This has been
achieved through periods, starting with the so-called
Stone Age where the DCL world has been created, and
Bronze Age, where the newly modelled 3d world has
been divided into parcels. Transitioning to the Iron Age,
the process of installing economy driven co-creation of
274 OREL, GUNA
the DCL content and implementing a scripting system for
the peer-to-peer communication was started. A full-
fledge metaverse with the customizable laws of physics
and other assets that will allow users the complete
freedom will be named the Silicon Age [13].
Figure 1: DCL hexagon grids during the Terraform event
The Terraform event took place in December 2017
when DCL auctioned a public land containing ten square
meter plots for interested individuals. In order to
participate, individuals needed to possess both Ether, a
native cryptocurrency token of the Ethereum blockchain,
and MANA. The LAND tokens represented as virtual
reality parcels were sold to the highest bidders. The
Terraform event saw the overall generation of 70,399
parcels of the land with 161,000,000 of MANA spent on
them [14]. Figure 1 shows hexagonal tiling as plots of
land generated in an identical size. The unstacked parcels
were transitioned to the DCL land market that also
opened the possibility to transfer already bought land,
give it a data stamp and open a trade between users [15].
Backed by a smart contract, the DCL marketplace secures
a transparent exchange of resources. This opens the
possibility for users to co-engineer the DCL metaverse by
grouping activities under various community districts,
co-build both visual and content aspects and propose a
governance mechanism that will ensure equal decision-
making processes.
4 CO-ENGINEERING THE VIRTUAL REALITY
SPACE WITH DECENTRALISED DISTRICTS
When observing the DCL development process, it is
important to note that its digitalised world can be
considered “curated” to some extent. The Genesis City
with Genesis Plaza as the first entry point for new users
is located in the very middle of the DCL metaverse and
creates a centre-of-gravity effect. The central positioning
of the city core that has been proposed by the DCL
creators does not impact only the general layout of the
map, but it also directly affects the in-world economy.
Although the auctioned virtual land proves to be more
expensive near the centre point, the implemented road
system spreads the value around the map instead of only
concentrating it in the very middle [15]. Nevertheless,
parcels near the 0.0 coordinates are expected to have
more traffic and are thus valued much higher than the
average LAND price. However, while some plots of land
can be seen as positioned privately and planned to be
individually constructed, other parcels are grouped into
community districts and are forming subnetworks. These
districts can generally be seen as areas of virtual plots of
LAND that have built up the intention for shared pursuits
by building unique digital ecosystems.
Districts are constructed upon a shared framework that
is built on front-end libraries and smart contracts that
allow the creation and operation of communal
marketplaces. These districts are interconnected with
virtual roads that allow users to discover the content
hosted on different parcels and can be thus seen as a
spatial browsing tool. By joining community districts, the
users are involved in the process of increasing computing
powers and are therefore able to co-develop their lands.
Each district may release their own resource tokens in the
form of NFTs. Depending on each district and its core
purpose, they can be used for the entry admission, voting
process, trading resource or certificate issuing.
There are twelve proposed districts that are currently
in a sandbox and are being co-engineered by the DCL
subnetworks: Aetheria, Arena, Conference Center,
Design Quarter, Dragon City, Festival Land, Museum,
The Movement, University, Vegas City and The Seven7
VR (formerly referred to as The Redlight District). These
community districts are a direct result of collaborative
actions between individuals who form subnetworks
based on the same or similar interests. Aetheria, the
largest and most active DCL district is for example
planned as a large cyberpunk-agglomeration where
individuals will be able to experience diverse contents
and will resemble a virtual world similar to the
fictionalized the Cline Oasis.
LAND owners within the Aetheria district are
encouraged to build a utopian content and express their
ideas through cyberpunk ethos as a culture of
technological embodiment. As cyberpunks represent a
subculture populated by individuals who contemplate
their ideas within the wireframe of scientific
achievements and advanced technologies, members of
this DCL subnetwork tend to combine the entertainment
industry with profit and non-for-profit operations by
dividing themselves into different classes according to
their interests [16].
In contrast to the Aetheria district, the DCL Arena
district is based on a real-life community in North
London, U.K.. Resembling the ideals of creating a
DECENTRALISING VIRTUAL REALITY 275
parallel world similar to the Doppel proposed by
MacManus where a seamless jump between the physical
and virtual worlds is possible, the district of Arena
envisions an interactive simulated environment that will
allow individuals to participate simultaneously in
activities resembling to a real life such as visiting
performances by artists, concerts by musicians or
socialising in a virtual coffee shop [17]. On the other
hand, the Festival Land district focuses solely on building
an interactive virtual land for hosting multimedia
festivals. Similar to Arena, the Conference Centre district
strives towards proposing a real-world resembling an
open area that would invite individuals to socialise over
meaningful discussions in a form of scheduled talks,
virtual conferences and similar services.
The Design Quarter Districts form a subnetwork of
stakeholders that have interest in transitioning special
disciplines such as architecture and engineering from a
physical to a virtual world. The Dragon City districts
group together the DCL subnetwork of individuals who
are interested in combining the China culture with the
Western modernisation. The Museum District tends to
allocate virtual museums and galleries, while the DCL
subnetwork behind the Movement district proposes an
area for grassroot innovation and borderless
collaboration. The University district proposes creation
of a functional educational establishment in DCL and the
Vegas City district accommodates LAND owners who
are building an emulation of the Vegas strip, alongside
with virtual casinos and performance halls. Finally, the
Seven7 VR district stakeholders envision recreation of
real-world red-light districts and provide an adult-themed
content. While these community districts have already
taken the first steps to generate the content material, we
need to note that there are various other grass-root and
unstructured districts that are simultaneously forming up
according to the neighbouring LAND owners. These
individuals tend to form weak bonds via using the DCL
community chats and form partnerships that result in a
manifestation of the same interests.
4.1 Visual and content aspects
There are two main layers of creating a content on
LAND, individually and in the premise of a selected
subnetwork that groups individual stakeholders within
one of the community districts. As Figure 2 suggests,
there is a content development process that may – at least
in some cases – point toward a circular model. When a
group of individuals purchases bordering parcels and
share a common interest, this can be recognized as a
district starting point [18]. Planning a district may start
with a strategic development that is proposed by
proactive peers within a DCL subnetwork.
As decentralisation loses the central authority, a
democratic governance model needs to be installed in
order to prevent a conflict of interests and moderate the
process of development according to mutually agreed
restrictions. A governance body is commonly designed
based on a mutual agreement between stakeholders who
can vote, propose and track decisions that affect their
plots of land and future presence in a selected community
district.
Figure 2: DCL district content development
When a mutual agreement is achieved, the
development process can transition into the creation
phase, where accompanying activities for land are being
created. This would generally lead to generating the
content by altering an individual LAND and modelling
its visual appearance in the DCL metaverse. However, it
is commonly projected amongst users of different DCL
subnetworks that securing sufficient resources for
community operations is existential. Not only by
contributing or generating financial resources from
external sources, but mainly by creating an in-market
economy that will also enable it to serve as a support
mechanism of a district existence. Based on the success
factor, this could be measured by internal activities,
frequency of visits or stability of in-market economy. A
further district development will be possible in several
ways. Firstly, the district could potentially rearrange its
subdistricts according to subnetworks needs and interests
or pivot to all-in-all pivot to other directions. Secondly, a
district with a high activity and engagement rates could
expand its sphere of interest and possibly merge with
other districts. This assumption is based on a similar
organisational structure or several districts where the
leadership team is made up by the same individuals.
Lastly, the DCL district could also witness a negative
trend of a complete disintegration and repeat the whole
process proposed in Figure 2.
As it goes from the technical perspective, stakeholders
can either outsource services or individually craft the
content by altering their LAND. This can be done by
using a 3d rendering engine such as WebGL in
combination with 3d content libraries such as Google
276 OREL, GUNA
Poly Library, SketchFab or Autodesk 3d Models Gallery,
to name a few examples, and the JavaScript library such
as A-Frame with extended subsets like A-Minus that
makes it possible for DCL apps to recognize the
Ethereum blockchain and grant account permissions.
Collaborative editing cannot be done simultaneously, but
merely by passing the code between individuals and
uploading separately. As stakeholders hold the ownership
over the DCL parcels on an individual basis, a strong
factor of trust needs to be present within a subnetwork in
order to enable collaboration. This is achievable by
proactive users who overtake the symbolical role of
district leaders. Their main objective is not only to steer
the process of the content development as seen in Figure
2, but mainly to nourish the ties and relationships
between stakeholders.
A steady and ongoing presence by community leaders
on chat channels such as the observed RocketChat is thus
essential. In the opposite case, the district development
process is stalled. Individualism with non-coordinated
actions may cause a complete disintegration of district
proposals and separated subnetworks. Externally, this can
be therefore recognised as a failed attempt of a collective
action caused by the non-existence of a central authority
who would be able to take an action [19]. However, we
have observed that a decentralized governance system
may prevent a possible disintegration and be perceived as
a core for a collective process of crafting the district
content.
4.2 Governance aspects
As the DCL virtual reality space will be launched,
preconstructed districts are set to be governed by
whatever the governance mechanism the founders will
decide to use. The projected levels of governance could
thus vary from deployment of the so-called Lex
Cryptographia or a set of rules administrated through a
self-executing smart contract and autonomous
organisations to lawless landscapes [20]. We can
anticipate that the vast virtual reality space of DCL will
not appear ungovernable but will be composed with
customary laws that commonly arise in computer-
mediated cyber communities [21].
Community leaders need to be proposed and approved
by the majority of the selected subnetworks. As the
governance wireframes are non-existent at this point,
pools are conducted by using the freely available online
tools such as Google Forms and the provision of the
cryptographic signature by each voting contributor that is
verified via Etherscan. Newly selected leaderships
propose the so-called Districts Startup Plans that are
publicly available and contain a description of how a
selected district will be governed, outline a plan for a
minimum viable product and present their vision for a
continuous development. The proposed plans are
accepted only if two thirds of the LAND owners that are
positioned within the parameter of the selected district
vote in favour. As constructing the governance for a
decentralised platform on the blockchain can be highly
controversial and complex, the majority of the DCL peers
as well as the DCL founders are in favour of integrating
external resources.
The DCL community and its subparts that are co-
constructing proposals for different districts are in favour
of integrating the principles of the Aragon Network
(AN), a platform for managing effective decentralized
organisations, which aims to disintermediate the creation
and maintenance of organisational structures by using the
blockchain technology. This is done by providing the
tools and an individual user interface to manage an entity
whose governance and bylaws are managed by smart
contracts via the Ethereum blockchain. Similarly to the
DCL token MANA, AN also operates with its own native
cryptocurrency, the ANT token. Aragon provides users a
complex set of tools including courts with a randomised
judge selection and public voting system that acts as a
digital jurisdiction over a selected area. In this matter,
Aragon can be understood as a decentralised application
(dApp) that lets individuals manage organizational
foundations on the Ethereum blockchain.
By running DCL and its districts through the Aragon
governance system, each district would have its own set
of rules for every parcel included within the district and
would be able to adapt its collectively-tailored voting. As
already outlined, this can be achieved by tailoring NFTs
by every district and distributing them amongst the
LAND stakeholders. These tokens are not meant only for
ensuring a democratic process of voting and creating
national pools, but also to establish other transparent
mechanisms, such as an arbitration system for solving
conflicts within the border limits of each district.
Individuals who have the tendency to control their
LAND within the district and others mainly seeking a
return of investment clashed in December 2017. In May
2018, a community-driven governance body that would
use smart contracts was proposed in order to apply
democratic and transparent mechanisms. These
mechanisms would be built upon establishment of a
Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO) with
memberships and voting shares based on the contributed
LAND counts. The voting shares will be represented by
the Aetheria tokens. In order to pass the proposal, at least
50% of tokens will need to be contributed by token
holders. Apart from dealing with democratic voting
processes, DAO will be authorised to manage other
affairs such as land allocation and its use. Smart contracts
could also be used as a prediction model of actions done
by the leadership team. This would ensure a further
transparency.
Other districts have proposed similar governance
bodies where the NFT membership tokens would
represent the core component of the voting mechanism.
DECENTRALISING VIRTUAL REALITY 277
In order to follow transparency, a communication- and
governance-related content, such as election
notifications, will be provided in undisclosed chat
channels. Research has shown that individuals tend to be
in favour of a transparent governance based on equality
and democratic mechanism.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This is for the first time that a qualitative method of the
online ethnography is used to explore a decentralised
virtual reality platform. The themes of the increased
social interactivity and collective action recurred
throughout the dataset. There are several possible
explanations for this result.
First, as opposed to the virtual reality platforms with a
centralised authority, decentralised platforms such as the
observed DCL are based on a collaborative interaction
between its peers. The activity, contribution and self-
realisation of these individuals are the measuring factors
of building the progress. As the LAND tokens and,
subsequently, the virtual parcels are owned by
stakeholders, moderation of the DCL users is needed to
form strong subnetworks and secure co-creation and co-
engineering of a decentralised metaverse. Moreover,
founders of a decentralised platform do not have the
mechanisms – apart from proposing and utilizing the core
framework – to terminate the ownership nor alter the
owned plots of the virtual land. For example, if the
majority of the selected community districts decides to
pivot their purpose, the governing body would need to
accept their request. This makes the decentralised virtual
reality platforms unregulated and individual stakeholders
hold the majority of the power to narrate their future
development.
Secondly, the social interactivity is higher because of
the perceived self-control. It is suggested that the
perceived interactivity in digital environments positively
correlates with the perceived control over the used
platform as well as with the perceived responsiveness and
personalisation of the platform [22]. This means that the
higher the level of personalisation and perceived
responsiveness, the higher the level of the expected
interactivity. Individuals tend not only to interact with
other peers but are interacting with their surroundings.
From this perspective, this interactivity can also be
understood as a self-expression [23]. Stakeholders and
LAND owners tend to propose diverse contents and are
faced with very little limitations when it comes to
expressing their interests. They can propose a new
governing body, new set of rules and change the in-
market economy as they have the access to all the
information. This may however reduce the stability of a
decentralised metaverse or part of it and cause
unpredictability when it comes to development planning.
The least but not the last, as the decentralised virtual
reality platforms need to be built on the blockchain
network, a high level of anonymity would be in place.
Therefore, the centralised platforms such as AltSpace VR
or Sansar can, for example, enforce a strict set of rules
limiting the interactivity to previously regulated limits,
whereas decentralised platforms such as DCL do not
have similar restrictions. Moreover, decentralised
platforms are not dependant on the real-world economy
and profitability of the entity that controls the centralised
platform. DCL is in contracts positioned on the
blockchain and owned by stakeholders possessing its
NFTs. This may be seen as positive from the perspective
of independency and prospectiveness but perceived
negative from the perspective of effectiveness and
security. A lost cryptographic log-on may mean a loss of
a user account and its possession over resources, while a
lost or forgotten password on the centralised platform can
be recovered.
This research has opened many questions needed to be
further investigated. Though the increased social
interactivity is common for the decentralised virtual
reality ecosystems such as DCL, the topic needs to be
further researched. More precise understanding of the
relationship between the virtual reality as a tool for
constructing an unregulated alternative reality and the
blockchain as a decentralised network will need to be
provided in the time ahead. We are thus obliged to
identify limitations and propose further research.
6 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The ethnographic research has proven to be an effective
method to secure the descriptive data. The community
chat stream and proposed actions by both the district
leaders and DCL team of founders have provided us with
a constructive image on the projected development of the
observed decentralised virtual reality platform. However,
this data must be carefully interpreted as they are a
novelty of the field. The decentralised platforms such as
DCL emerged only in 2017 and are being collaboratively
constructed through a technically complex and socially
challenging process. From this perspective, the paper
provides a helpful insight in decentralisation of the
virtual reality and its future challenges.
However, generalisability of these results is subject to
certain limitations. For instance, while a qualitative
research provides descriptive data and a valuable insight
into further exploration of decentralisation and virtual
reality, it does not measure their impact on individuals
and their well-being or personal development for
instance. The relationship development that is a direct
result of the interactivity would need to be measured
using detailed questionnaires and analysed by different
approaches.
Technical aspects are also changing and developing
fast as the involved individuals are constantly seeking for
both improvement of platforms and personal gain. A
complex tokenisation of services and ecosystems may
278 OREL, GUNA
change the way people engage themselves in group
interactions such as co-creating the content. Following
the above, the further research should be towards using
multiple ways of data collecting over a longer period of
time. REFERENCES
[1] Nowak, Kristine L., and Frank Biocca. "The effect of the agency
and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence,
and social presence in virtual environments.", Presence: Teleoper-
ators & Virtual Environments 12(5), pp. 481-494, 2003.
[2] Tham, Jason, Ann Hill Duin, Laura Gee, Nathan Ernst, Bilal Ab-
delqader, and Megan McGrath "Understanding Virtual Reality:
Presence, Embodiment, and Professional Practice.", IEEE Trans-
actions on Professional Communication 61(2), pp. 178-195, 2018.
[3] Sanchez-Vives, Maria V., and Mel Slater "From presence to con-
sciousness through virtual reality.", Nature Reviews Neuroscience
6(4), pp. 332-339, 2005.
[4] Iachini, Tina, Yann Coello. Francesca Frassinetti, and Gennaro
Ruggiero, “Body space in social interactions: a comparison of
reaching and comfort distance in immersive virtual reality”, PloS
one 9(11), 1-7, 2014.
[5] Slater, Mel, Pankaj Khanna, Jesper Mortensen & Insu Yu, “Visual
realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual envi-
ronment”, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 29(3), pp.
76-84, 2009.
[6] Rouse, Margaret “Immersive Virtual Reality”, Techtarget, 2016.
[7] https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/immersive-virtual-reality-
immersive-VR (23.7.2018)
[8] Handa, Mandeep, Gagandeep Aul, and Shelja Bajaj, “Immersive
technology–uses, challenges and opportunities”, International
Journal of Computing & Business Research 6(2), pp. 1-11, 2012.
[9] Mandal, Sharmistha, “Brief introduction of virtual reality & its
challenges”, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Re-
search 4(4), pp. 304-309, 2013.
[10] Gainsbury, Sally M., and Alex Blaszczynski. "How blockchain and
cryptocurrency technology could revolutionize online gambling."
Gaming Law Review 21(7): pp. 482-492, 2017.
[11] Aste, Tomaso, Paolo Tasca, and Tiziana Di Matteo "Blockchain
technologies: The foreseeable impact on society and industry.",
computer 50(9), pp. 18-28, 2017.
[12] Ryskeldiev, Bektur, Yoichi Ochiai, Michael Cohen, and Jens
Herder "Distributed Metaverse: Creating Decentralized Block-
chain-based Model for Peer-to-peer Sharing of Virtual Spaces for
Mixed Reality Applications.", Proceedings of the 9th Augmented
Human International Conference, pp. 39-41, 2018.
[13] Gaggioli, Andrea. "Blockchain Technology: Living in a Decentral-
ized Everything.", Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-
working 21(1): pp. 65-66, 2018.
[14] Ordano, Esteban, Ariel Meilich, Yemel Jardi and Manuel Araoz.
2017. “Decentraland: White Pape”r, 2018.
[15] https://decentraland.org/whitepaper.pdf (23.7.2018)
[16] Zuppinger, Gauthier “Short Analysis of Decentraland’s Uprising
Economy”, Medium, 2018.
[17] https://medium.com/nonfungible/short-analysis-of-decentralands-
uprising-economy-1e55ac687c35 (23.7.2018)
[18] Waldorf, Trevor “Designing Genesis City: Roads & Urban Plan-
ning”, Medium, 2018.
[19] https://blog.decentraland.org/designing-genesis-city-roads-urban-
planning-ba068f08e74d (23.7.2018)
[20] Hafner, Katie, and John Markoff. “Cyberpunk: outlaws and hack-
ers on the computer frontier, revised”, Simon and Schuster, 1995.
[21] McManus, Richard “Presence”, CreateSpace Independent Publish-
ing Platform, 2016.
[22] Coghlan, Priscila “Aetherian project – Cyberpunk metaverse”,
GitHub, 2017.
[23] https://github.com/decentraland/districts/issues/33 (23.7.2018)
[24] Sedgwick, Kai “Blockchain Games have got a long way to go”
Bitcoin News, 2018.
[25] https://news.bitcoin.com/blockchain-games-have-got-a-long-way-
to-go/ (23.7.2018)
[26] Wright, Aaron, and Primavera De Filippi “Decentralized block-
chain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia”, 2015.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2580664
(23.7.2018)
[27] Croitoru, Arie, N. Wayant, A. Crooks, Jacek Radzikowski, and An-
thony Stefanidis “Linking cyber and physical spaces through com-
munity detection and clustering in social media feeds”, Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 53, pp. 47-64, 2015.
[28] Lee, Dongwon, Jaimie Yejean Park, Junha Kim, Jaejeung Kim, and
Junghoon Moon, “Understanding music sharing behaviour on so-
cial network services.”, Online Information Review 35(5), pp. 716-
733, 2011.
[29] Sundar, S. Shyam, Jeeyun Oh, Saraswathi Bellur, Haiyan Jia, and
Hyang-Sook Kim, “Interactivity as self-expression: a field experi-
ment with customization and blogging.” Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.
395-404, 2012.
Marko Orel holds a Ph.D. degree in sociology and is a
researcher specialising in exploration of the changing nature of
the global workplace, development of on-site and digital
collaborative communities and research of the digital age that
presents major new challenges to working individuals. He
explores projects and operational networks of influences,
community engagement moderation and its inter-relational
participation. Apart from his specialisation in socioeconomics,
he holds a special interest in researching the virtual reality with
a particular focus on understanding how new technologies such
as the blockchain redefine the social dislocation. He is a co-
founder of the Poligon Creative Centre, a collaborative oriented
workspace in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a founder of VRable, i.e.
an open-source research project that examines social aspects of
VR. He is also a founder of a Ljubljana-based VR meet-up
group of virtual reality developers, engineers and enthusiasts.
He is currently employed as a full-time researcher at the
University of Economics Prague, and resides in Prague, the
Czech Republic.
Jože Guna is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, University of Ljubljana. His area of research
includes Internet technologies, multimedia technologies and
IPTV systems with a special emphasis on the user-centred
design, user-interaction modalities and designing the user
experience, VR/AR/MR technologies, including gamification
and flow aspects. Currently, he is involved in a number of
projects focusing on the development of intuitive user
interfaces for elderly users of the eHealth application and
interactive multimedia HBBTV and VR/AR/MR applications.
He is an expert in Internet, ICT and IPTV technologies and
holds several industrial certificates by CISCO, Comptia and
Apple, including trainer licenses by Cisco and Apple. He is a
senior member of the IEEE organization and is the IEEE
Slovenia-Section Secretary General.
