All Things Newz
Law \ Legal

Do Companies Need A Metaverse Voting Policy? – Fin Tech

[ad_1]

The past year has seen many companies entering into the metaverse,
including by buying land. For some metaverses, particularly ones
that have a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), the
ownership of land, assets and cryptocurrency comes with more than
just virtual real estate. Owners also receive the power to vote on
issues affecting that metaverse. So joining the metaverse makes
these companies a voting member of the online community — and
that can raise legal, ethical and reputational problems. Every
company considering a land purchase in the metaverse should ask
itself first whether it needs a metaverse voting policy.

Land, DAOs and Voting Rights

The most obvious way in which a company might enter the
metaverse is through the purchase of virtual land. In metaverses
such as Decentraland and The
Sandbox
, NFTs (non-fungible tokens) determine ownership of
land. These metaverses designate a finite number of land NFTs, each
of which is associated with a plot of virtual land in the
metaverse. After buying a plot of land, a company can begin to
develop an experience on the land as part of a strategy to bring attention to a brand. This
experience could range from a game to an interactive product
experience.

Some metaverses are governed by a DAO. DAOs manage certain
aspects of the metaverse via users’ direct vote. In
Decentraland, metaverse participants are given Voting Power, or VP, based on the amount of
Land, Mana (Decentraland’s native cryptocurrency) and Names
that they own. Various issues are put to a vote, and it is decided by a simple majority of Voting Power,
subject to a minimum participation threshold (akin to shares and a
quorum). Decentraland’s DAO is key to its claim that its
metaverse is “decentralized,” because the power to govern
much of the metaverse is not held by a single entity or owner, but
is instead held communally by its users.

With the power to vote, however, comes the obligation to take
positions on issues. And taking positions on issues could run
counter to the companies’ metaverse or broader business goals.
Consider the following situations.

Public Voting and Reputational Risks

In metaverses such as Decentraland, votes are not private. In
particular, voting is at least partly mediated by a tool called Snapshot, which publishes a log of blockchain
addresses as well as how each address voted on a particular issue.
See, for instance, this vote in Snapshot to add a plot of land to
Decentraland’s Points of Interest; the Snapshot logs the vote,
Voting Power and wallet address of each voter. Because all the
votes are public, and landowners’ wallet addresses are also
public, there will be a public, permanent record of a company’s
voting history. All of the issues that a company voted on, as well
as all of the issues that a company did not vote on, could
be scrutinized and result in reputational harm. The issues voted
upon in Decentraland can oftentimes be political — a past
proposal, for instance, proposed to ban the name “Putin”
— with fraught reputational consequences regardless of how or
whether a company votes.

Competitive Conflicts

Metaverse voting power can also be used to vote on issues
involving intellectual property enforcement matters,
among other issues that directly affect a company’s business
partners and competitors. Such votes could put a company at risk
of, for instance, business-tort liability or antitrust violations.
In other words, the power to vote on issues in the metaverse, where
votes and non-votes are public, can put a company in a wide variety
of potentially conflicting positions that it wouldn’t otherwise
have outside of the metaverse.

Developing a Metaverse Voting Policy

Given these risks, companies should consider developing a
metaverse voting policy before entering the metaverse or voting in
it. Different companies will need different things, but every
company should consider at the very least the following things:

  1. Its values and how that will set a framework for how it votes
    on issues and what issues it votes on (if any, see below).

  2. A plan for how it will publicly justify its votes and
    non-votes.

  3. How upcoming DAO votes will be identified, how voting decisions
    will be worked up and approved, and the person who will do the
    actual voting.

Much of this policy will depend on details of the DAO itself.
If, for instance, a DAO has a very short voting period, it may make
sense to develop less formal procedures for determining how a
company votes. If a DAO has a very high voting threshold for the
passage of an issue, and the company wants its votes to count, it
may consider adjusting its ownership of property in the metaverse
accordingly.

Should Companies Adopt a Non-Voting Policy?

With all of these considerations in play, a company might decide
that metaverse voting power carries with it too many headaches. Is
it possible to simply not vote? There are a few different ways that
a company could do this. First, a company could own land in the
metaverse and simply develop an official policy of non-voting
— that is, taking no position on any issue in the metaverse.
Second, a company could decide to not participate as an owner in
the metaverse — either through renting land in the metaverse
or hiring a third-party contractor to create experiences in the
metaverse for a fee.

In the first case, a company might be able to avoid some
reputational harms associated with voting by simply opting out,
though non-voting does not always avoid controversy. After all, a
land-owning non-voter still has the power to use its votes
to affect outcomes in the metaverse. So a company will still need a
public relations strategy to justify not voting.

In the second case, avoiding controversy seems easier because a
company that merely rents land in the metaverse lacks the power to
vote in the metaverse, so it cannot be deemed responsible for its
non-voting behavior in the way that a non-voting owner can be. Then
again, there are also drawbacks to renting. As a renter, it is not
possible to maintain a permanent location in the metaverse —
something that could be problematic in metaverses such as
Decentraland, where parcels have discrete locations, and location
can be strategically important. Moreover, if the world outside the
metaverse is any indication, a renter still runs risks based on
association with a landowner and its voting activities.

Finally, in both cases, a company that opts for non-voting
forgoes all of the benefits that come with utilizing metaverse
voting power. These benefits shouldn’t be underestimated. After
all, the intent of a DAO is to have a governance mechanism that has
a real effect on the participants in the metaverse. A company that
utilizes its metaverse voting power can reap the benefits of
metaverse participation while avoiding potential harms by
developing a well-thought-out policy for voting in the
metaverse.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

[ad_2]

Source link

Related posts

中国《反垄断法》配套新规律师实务评述(3/4):经营者集中 A Practical Review Of New Supporting Regulations Of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (3/4): Concentration Of Undertakings – Antitrust, EU Competition

Feds Promise Immigration Boost To Address Labour Market Shortages – General Immigration

Expert Evidence: Does It Pay To Shop Around? – Construction & Planning