METAVERSE IN THE MASS PRODUCTION INDUSTRY

 

 

An advanced manufacturing vendor 3D prints spacecraft parts on-demand for international 

space tourism maintenance clients:

A maintenance engineer from a client in South America needs to refurbish a recently returned

 spacecraft before its next launch. They use AR that is interoperable with an interactive

 maintenance checklist to inspect the spacecraft and identify parts that need to be replaced.

Logging into a virtual storefront, the engineer and sales manager use a digital twin of the clients

’ spacecraft that is interoperable with a back-end parts catalogue to identify the parts that need

 to be replaced.

The vendor is enabled to cross-reference the part via an application programming interface 

(API) with the International Standards Organization (ISO) database to confirm specifications

 and manufacturing schematics. The ISO specification

allows the engineer to be confident that the 3D-printed parts will be compatible with their 

spacecraft and pass inspection.

The vendor allows the customer to purchase an on-demand licence to receive certified 3D

 printing schematics to print it themselves to their own printer. By using industrial 3D printers

 that are interoperable with standard file formats, materials and compliance certificates, it

 promotes accessibility for buyers to access the platform as

needed irrespective of device or location.

While benefits thus far have focused on outlining positive externalities for providers, creators

 and participants, interoperability also benefits society.

By standardizing development tools and processes,while also creating standards regarding

 how to move, transact, access and create, society has effectively created, augmented and

 expanded a new digital marketplace. For example, interoperability is a value lever that can

 enable the following:

   Increased access: By standardizing hardware compatibility and interoperable

data interchange, the market creates access parity and equity for marginalized groups.

 Thisenables a wider audience to participate in the digital economy and enterprise functions. 

For example, individuals within a marketplace that have issues obtaining VR headsets due to

 high- tax import fees may instead access metaverse

experiences from more accessible hardware – like smartphones.

   Increased engagement: By reaching a broader marketplace, participants and creators can

 develop and engage with a broader set of assets and experiences. This expands global,

 dynamic marketplaces where new economic opportunities flourish. For example, a movie

 producer on a European streaming service can casually access an Australian audience, given

 that audiences no longer have to intentionally

use tools like virtual private networks (VPNs) to gain access to systems that were previously

 region locked.

A luxury car maker from Asia has developed a virtual showroom for a new line of built-to-order

 automobiles; this maximizes customization and minimizes inventory.

A customer is enabled to access a 3D virtual showroom on their device. Here, they are able to

 tailor all aspects of the build. Once customization is complete, the customer has the option to 

virtually test-drive the new car on various digital tracks, including snowy mountains in the

 Nordics, sandy roads in the Middle East or smooth interstates in Australia. Given the selected

 track and present driving conditions,

the customized car will react accordingly to provide an authentic experience. Whether using a

 console, phone, laptop, headset or an advanced simulator, the consumer can use available

 controls to drive the car.

This dealer offers multiple options for purchasing, such as buying the physical car, purchasing

 an NFT digital replica, or both. Should the consumer wish to purchase an NFT of the car, they 

may save the car to their digital wallet and transport the object into relevant games. Should they

 wish to purchase the physical car, they are able to

purchase the car directly from the online design experience, through a kiosk at a dealership or

 with a sales agent using fiat or cryptocurrencies.

All parts of the experience and transaction are dynamically linked to the customer’s

identity; upon ordering a physical car, the car is built and delivered. Should the customer ever

 wish to sell either their NFT or physical car, the asset comes with certificates proving its 

authenticity and ownership.

Consumer experience in the metaverse

   Increased efficiencies: By standardizing transaction processes via nimble cross-border

 payments, exchanges, and atomic settling processes,15,16 time savings occur. For example,

 a bank may potentially avoid the need to settle

transactions through an exchange house and instead can settle directly with a given

Consumer.

   Increased trust: By using blockchain technology – or a value exchange supported by

 universal data provenance  and data lineage – consumers and sellers can possess greater 

trust in transactions. For example, a seller of a non-fungible token (NFT) can prove authenticity

 to a buyer as the asset’s history was enabled to

move with it across platforms.

Technical interoperability.

Technical interoperability  in the metaverse requires a strong network infrastructure foundation

 that allows for data interchange across varying hardware

and software to deliver (near) realistic experiences. Just like webpages require transmission

 control protocol (TCP)/IP to exchange data and HTML for presenting information in 2D, the

 metaverse will require a similar degree of standardization

to enable communication and interoperability.

 

Among others, this includes reviewing: 1) the scope of data needing to move across devices 

and networks, 2) the timeliness of the data exchange, 3) the file formats and data schemas, 4)

 the artistic and stylistic interpretation of assets, and 5) the

computing power required to process transmitted data. Standards groups, like the Metaverse

 Standards Forum, the Open Metaverse Alliance for Web3 (OMA3),  and stalwarts like the

 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)  and

the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)  have started – and should continue – to consider

 these technical interchange needs.

Beyond the technical structure, given that data is at the heart of all participation and

 management activities in the metaverse, technical interoperability design should consider how

 to address topics such as network constraints, asset ownership, IP

protections, payments, identity, data privacy and security concerns at both hardware and 

software levels to cultivate a human-first metaverse.

1. Infrastructure requirements: Accessibility and inclusivity are essential to building a

 human- first metaverse. From a technical approach,designers should examine how localization,

 latency and bandwidth can be addressed to extend a similar sense of persistence and

 presence across metaverse experiences.

Given the differences in the availability of hardware, stakeholders should examine

how data interchange can be designed to support inclusive access irrespective of

device. This could be achieved through backward compatibility standards, minimum

bandwidth requirements or the production of scaled experiences for global accessibility.

 

For example, a sports tournament could be completely immersive in a headset, be 

semi-immersive with AR/MR or desktop browser, or passively streamed to a mobile device.

The production of technical standards such as glTF and/or universal scene description(USD)

 will support data interchange interoperability across the infrastructure. Future best practices

 should cover functional usage and technical data interchange.

Data privacy and security: Metaverse hardware technologies – such as AR glasses,

VR goggles, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and other sensors – will produce and process a

 myriad of data. These data types may include (perceived) field of view (FoV), voice analysis,

 biometric data such as heart-rate monitoring, iris scans, pupil dilation, and inferred data like

 gait detection. It is critical that stakeholders consider the gravity of these data types and

 position privacy and security at the centre of competitive, interoperability standards. Standards

 bodies should make use of existing privacy, security, and child safety frameworks and 

enterprise risk management tools when:

Setting standards for data collection, sharing, classification, labels, retention,

ownership, rights, agency, storage locations and encryption methods.

– Advising on how much data and what type of information must be exchanged to

support persistence and presence, and enable users to move across worlds.

– Setting standards for how and when data or persons should be authenticated to provide

 expected degrees of anonymity.

3. Identity and onboarding: Web 2.0 asked users to accept terms of service and cookies and 

occasionally verify age before accessing webpages – which has shown to be limited and easily

 bypassed. Similarly, traversing immersive spaces will require users to opt- in to new experiences.

 In 3D environments, however, beyond accepting notice and consent structures,

 opting in may include creating a new avatar and agreeing to net-new codes of conduct or community standards.

This lengthy and tedious process can be reimagined and supported through technical

 interoperability design. 

 

Stakeholders should consider how individuals and associated identities,

 or attributes, assets and preferences may follow users across experiences to reduce

 recreating identities and improve the onboarding experiences while keeping users’ privacy and

 security rights in mind. It is worth considering, however, that users may wish to have multiple

 identities and expectations in different environments. Digital intermediaries, or trusted

 third parties, could facilitate actions such as identity clearing, asset management and

 compliance checking, among others.

4. Asset ownership: The economy of the metaverse will be supported by the creation, buying,

 selling and trading of digital assets.

Owners of digital assets are likely to want to keep them in a digital wallet available across

 platforms and experiences. This functionality creates technical requirements around: 1) how

 items should be associated with, collectively managed by and interoperate across users, 

2) how assets should translate and be rendered

across interoperable worlds, and 3) how data should be attached to portable objects

to provide provenance. Moreover, as digital objects can easily be copied, requirements must 

also protect intellectual property to prevent copyright infringement. Stakeholders should review

 how standards and common structures – like APIs and regulations from the 2D world – may

 translate and be enforced in

immersive spaces and 3D objects. While not exhaustive, some solutions may include web3

 technologies like distributed ledgers, digital wallets and smart contracts.

5. Payments: The metaverse economy will require technical interoperability to extend

to transactions and currencies, but like the existing banking system, it will be complex and 

differentiated, with standardization existing as appropriate. With the rise of digital currencies,

 providers should consider whatcross-settlement 36 should look like and the role of digital 

exchanges. For example, if a participant from China wishes to use the digital yuan (e-CNY), 

stakeholders should address what this data and currency interchange looks like across users,

 borders and the physical-digital paradigm more broadly.

Select opportunities may lend themselves to using financial institutions’ know-your-

customer (KYC) frameworks in the metaverse.

Questions about data interchange support and compliance also need to be addressed, as well

 as critical issues regarding taxation in each of the relevant jurisdictions.

 

Usage interoperability

Usage interoperability is a core component of the metaverse and is required to deliver 

value-add, human-first experiences. Consideration of the following components may assist in

 developing and implementing meaningful decisions across interoperability layers in a way that

 prioritizes human needs and consequently integrates supportive design choices, tools and

 interactions. By conscientiously building with usage interoperability in mind, metaverse

 stakeholders will collectivelyenjoy the benefits the metaverse offers. However, this is not 

without its challenges.

1. Designing and collaborating globally: While addressing interoperability challenges and 

employing human-centric design processes, it is essential to include individuals across cultures 

to achieve inclusive design38 that respects cultures,

norms and practices.

2. Designing across demographics:

Stakeholders should not assume that all users are created equal. For example, a minor

 hasdifferent needs than an adult, and a young first- time user should not be treated like a

 seasoned cybersecurity professional; each has a different digital literacy level and tolerance 

for being exposed to sensitive content and other users.

Information, content and experiences should be appropriate for different levels, from novice to

 professional. As such, design considerations should be equitable and inclusive to protect the 

end-user’s interests. These choices include items such as: 1) age-appropriate design.

2) how and when participants can traverse, enter and engage with worlds.

3) which assets are portable across experiences.

 4) how and to what degree content and conduct are moderated.

 5) what data is captured, how interoperability is integrated to protect the interests of children.

3. Designing for inclusivity and accessibility:

Stakeholders should thoughtfully ensure that designing for accessibility does not result in a 

lesser experience. Stakeholders should collaborate to curate and expand developer guides, for

 accessibility needs, including but not limited to the following use cases:

a. An individual using VR who is blind or has low vision should not be relegated to using a

 lesser alternative; creators should design animmersive headset that is rendered for users with

 limited or reduced vision or something with functional equivalence.

b. An individual using a standard AR tool to translate street signs in real-time should be

 enabled to select a default language that translates the text into the user’s native

language instead of needing to rely ondefaults – such as English.

c. An individual that cannot access VR hardware due to external barriers should not

be excluded from accessing a metaverse event or experience.

4. Designs that are fit for use: Stakeholders must identify the underlying needs or problems

 that metaverse experiences are solving for and design the experience and community

 guidelines accordingly. For example:

a. An individual’s awareness of cultural norms across virtual borders may affect user

experience and preferences.

b. An individual may choose to obscure facial expressions from other avatars in

entertainment experiences; however, in a therapy or telehealth session, it may be a

requirement to enable sharing.

By considering the above, stakeholders empower individuals and enable access to potentially 

life- altering technology. Implementation of solutions across these categories are varied but will

 relyheavily on human-first design and literacy campaigns that educate and involve participants,

 creators, providers and society on how to make inclusive choices on:

1. Setting expectations for terms of service.

2. Creating standardized community guidelines and codes of conduct – inclusive of content and

 conduct moderation mechanisms and portability of assets.

3. Defining the limits of what should be interoperable to protect privacy, uphold security and 

ensure end-user safety.

Jurisdictional interoperability.

The ability to operate within a jurisdiction or across different jurisdictions governed by differing

 regulatory requirements to ensure that metaverse activities are conducted in a lawful manner.

Jurisdictional interoperability Jurisdictional interoperability, also known as regulatory 

interoperability,46 centres the conversation on how to collectively curate interoperable 

metaverse experiences while considering stakeholders’ varied locations, regulations, and 

regional and cultural expectations. The boundless

metaverse exposes challenges, including:

1. Data compliance: Regional localities maintain regulatory guidelines and mandates

for managing the data supply chain. This scope includes acquiring, storing, disclosing, 

aggregating, analysing, manipulating, using, sharing, selling and disposing of data. With a

 boundless metaverse built within the constructsof a physical-centric legal system, the 

metaverse must address data flows resulting from

geographic constraints. For example, a German citizen lives abroad in the United States but is

 currently in Peru while accessing a metaverse world hosted in Australia. Which data laws apply

 to this citizen and the experiences they have?

From a compliance perspective, what laws must the platform(s), data exchange(s) and other

 stakeholders prioritize? With increasing amounts of critical, sensitive data, the ramifications of

 data use in the metaverse expand beyond those of Web 2.0.

2. Transacting and creating: The expanse of the metaverse leaves questions open to how the

 international community should address participants’ ability to transact and create withinnew 

3D spaces. This brings into question topics of ownership, intellectual property, copyright,

 trademark and licensing laws, along with

contract, security, tax and employment law.

Their relation to digital currencies, assets and virtual places opens more areas to explore for

 metaverse law.

3. Accountability: As in Web 2.0, users will experience harms, such as identity fraud,

transaction fraud or other social harms.

Metaverse stakeholders must create accountability models that enable recourse

and redress for social and economic harms.

Additionally, these must be multilateral to allow participants, creators and providers to benefit

 irrespective of geography. Moreover, while transgressions and cybercrimes may be occurring

 in VR, the physical world must indicate how the international community should address digital

 services to create safe digital spaces.

4. Identity frameworks: Digital identity is the nexus to an interoperable metaverse. It enables 

accountability and the capacity to traverse worlds with minimal friction. Identity is also highly 

contextual. For example, a punk rocker may want to disassociate from their musical persona 

during their workday as an attorney.

Where possible, interoperability should honour the human-first need for selective anonymity 

and pseudonymity to protect user privacy while respecting the tension between self-expression 

and creating safe environments.

Solutions across these categories are varied but include:

1. Establishing inclusive channels across localities, industries and nations to facilitate

open dialogues where competitive standards can be co-developed to address concerns, such

 as:

– How stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure privacy and security

compliance throughout the entirety of the data supply chain.

– What best practices and solutions may encourage commerce while protecting

stakeholders across the transaction and creation life cycle.

– What the necessary components of identity frameworks are that enable appropriate 

mechanisms to enforce accountability and seek recourse and redress.

2. Reviewing existing regulatory frameworks created in Web 2.0 and analyzing how

existing laws around relevant topics – like online safety and content moderation – may be 

applied in metaverse spaces before crafting new regulation.

3. Formalizing research and development between private-public sector bodies via

regulatory sandboxes, academic investment, trade organization creation and/or non-profit 

engagement.