Q for the metaverse

The emerging metaverse still lacks one of its most important building blocks: A sound governance infrastructure. Q’s vision is to provide a universal governance layer that users, companies, and projects engaged in the metaverse can build on.

This blog post is the third part of a short series which summarizes the benefits of building on Q. In the first post, I have described the generic properties of Q, whereas the second post focuses on DAOs. Future blog posts in this series will highlight the benefits which Q offers for other verticals and use cases.

Governance in the metaverse

As the metaverse takes shape, the issue of governance will become ever more critical. Many sources of conflict that we know from the “real world” will be present in the digital sphere, as will many new ones — some of which we cannot even think of today. This development, which is already clearly visible today, is turbo-charged by the emergence of blockchain-based digital assets (e.g. non-fungible tokens, or NFTs): Whereas previously, digital worlds were mostly fun and games, now there is real value that is being transacted. On top of this, as interactions in the metaverse increasingly begin to mirror real life, decisions will become more nuanced — exceeding the scope of what can be implemented through a simple “if-this-then-that” logic. This will require much more sophisticated rule-sets and dispute resolution mechanisms than exist today. These will need to capture not only deterministic decision rules that can be fully captured by smart contracts, but also general principles and intent.

The metaverse will only be interesting if there are tough decisions to be made

Here are three examples of the types of decisions that I believe people will face in the metaverse:

• How do you resolve property disputes in the metaverse? All societies and legal systems have rules for dealing with such disputes. Of course, many types of property transactions can — and should — be handled by smart contracts; after all, the secure and trustless transfer of digital ownership is what blockchain technology is all about. However, in real life, many property transactions exceed a simple this-for-that logic — e.g. when parties agree on a transaction in principle but leave details such as the exact price and payment conditions open. With idiosyncratic assets such as real estate, there is always scope for interpretation. For example, if a “fair value clause” is included, who determines what fair value is? While those types of decisions can be fully transparent, they still require interpretation and judgement. Currently, the metaverse does not have good solutions for such cases — but it will need to develop those if it is to move beyond its current state.
• How do you resolve disputes in decentralized communication, such as what is protected under free speech and what isn’t? Again, even the most simplistic rule-sets (such as “you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn’t harm someone”) require interpretation. Today, most people would not trust an AI to make such decisions, let alone a simple rule that can be programmed in a smart contract. And even if algorithms may be able to handle an increasingly large number of cases, there will always be edge cases that require more deliberation. And it is exactly those cases which determine whether a system will work for its participants or not.
• Lastly, how do you decide about the development of metaverse projects themselves? Having a small group of developers or other insiders control the future of a project will dramatically limit its appeal, just as dictatorships in the physical world do a poor job in attracting new citizens. For the metaverse to thrive, frameworks will be needed which set the boundaries within which different types of policy decisions can be made.

These are just three examples out of many, and there will probably be a lot more that we cannot even think of today. Just like any new social technology, the metaverse will develop its own set of challenges.

What is clear though already today is that the metaverse will need a solid governance layer if we want it to become an interesting and prosperous place.

The way forward: “Digital first” governance on Q

Solely relying on traditional legal systems to fix governance disputes is not an option, since they are painfully inadequate for dealing with issues in the metaverse. For example, the simple fact that legal systems are bound to countries, whereas the metaverse is global in nature, renders this option unworkable. Clearly, a universal governance layer that is adapted to the requirements of the metaverse is needed. Critically, this metaverse governance layer should be credibly neutral — i.e. not dependent on a single company or a closed group of people; and it will need a solid set of checks and balances if it is to be trusted by users.

Q aims to provide such a universal governance layer. Based on the Q blockchain, which is fully open-source, the Q protocol boasts a full-scope governance framework that can be expanded in a modular fashion to serve many metaverse projects and their user bases.

Q’s governance framework is based on the Q Constitution, which lays down the system’s rules for all participants. The rules are implemented in the code base of Q via smart contracts, which allows for automatic execution of a large set of rules. Beyond this, though, Q allows for the implementation of discretionary decisions — e.g. via voting mechanisms or expert panels for subject areas that require domain-specific expertise. Most importantly, even these types of decisions can be effectively enforced within the Q system — fully decentralized and without having to revert back to “old-world” legal and enforcement systems.

The Q Constitution is monitored and enforced by a special set of so-called root nodes, which are independently elected by the Q token holder community from a diverse set of highly reputable people and institutions. This two-tier node structure leads to a significant improvement in security compared to other blockchain-based systems.

If conflicts arise, they can be resolved via a defined dispute resolution mechanism, which relies on private arbitration. This approach has been tried-and-tested in the world of big multinational corporations, which regularly opt to resolve disputes in private arbitration courts such as the ones organized by the International Chamber of Commerce, rather than relying on the legal system of a specific country. Q now democratizes this principle by integrating dispute resolutions procedures into a blockchain-based system that is available to all of its users.

By using Q’s governance, metaverse projects can fully implement a “digital first” strategy, getting rid of the need to travel back into the “old world” whenever difficult questions or disputes arise.

Start building on Q

Getting started on Q is easy: Companies and projects that build in the metaverse can do so on Q using the same tooling as on any other EVM-compatible smart contract platform. On top of that, they have the option to integrate into Q’s governance. By doing so, they benefit from a ready-to-use governance infrastructure as well as from the highest level of security that the metaverse offers.

Q’s mainnet has gone live in March 2022 and is fully operational. Metaverse projects that are interested in boosting their value by supporting sound governance principles can reach out to me or anyone else from the Q core team. Also, if you are interested in building on Q, I highly recommend that you tune into the Q community to be among the first to learn about the upcoming grants program.