Introduction.
Since 1994, this laboratory has been developing the first reality-sharing applications with what was then a rudimentary digitized world.
I often read news, even from authoritative sources, that report the reality of what many like to call the metaverse, but from a technical and research perspective, or rather, from the perspective of the overall computer world, industry experts and operators are accustomed to calling it what it was defined as back in 1994 at the dawn of the drafting of the first institutional laws on the subject, namely VRO virtual and room object; an acronym that today makes us smile because in reality, translated into our language it becomes “virtual rooms and objects” when today we are basically able to virtualize practically anything existing on the planet and even what does not exist yet, but at the time it was a truly revolutionary term.
VRO systems are tools that have a very important constitutive principle, namely they are not born to be tools that must determine and dominate the individual and his behaviors, but on the contrary they are born as tools that are the natural continuation and improvement of human characteristics.
This means that the development of a VRO system, because we are talking about systems and not individual applications, is designed and created with the precise purpose of helping the user improve certain activities.
At the basis of VRO systems, there is the fundamental element of determining data in the hands of the user and not in the hands of a manager to whom all our data management rights are transferred, directly or indirectly, willingly or unwillingly.
When we look (from now on I will use the word metaverse to define the subject in order to make it more understandable even for those who are not technical) at the world of the metaverse, we realize that we only see the external interface of the systems, namely the graphics and the mode of involvement in the environments designed by developers, but in reality, the systems applied to the metaverse are much more; today we can distinguish between gaming, social, or business and learning-oriented metaverses, and this already allows us to understand from the outset how much the development part of the individual platforms and applications is already divided according to the root from which they come.
We specialize in and have been studying what can be defined as the only business and learning-oriented metaverse currently and extremely developed, namely the development of a real operating system and a modeling and application design technique that allows the integration of everything that exists today at the computer level in the form of integrations.
Integration refers to the ability of a VRO environment to acquire a digitized, computerized, and realized element, even with different technology; to give an example: if I create a VRO that represents an office and in this office, I have virtualized my personal computer, on the screen of this virtualized personal computer, I will have the possibility to make the real screen of the computer that I am using physically and really in the office appear, this allows me to interact, through the integration commands of the VRO, directly with the application that is reported and that is displayed through the immersive environment.
And from this example, of course, hundreds of others can be drawn, such as the doctor who consults the patient’s medical record in a virtualized office, without transferring any data to the VRO world but keeping data management within the computerized systems that are regulated by devices such as the GDPR or other European regulations.
Very often in lectures, seminars, or presentations that I find myself doing, people ask a question that unites them, namely:
Why should they switch to a web 3 system and not continue to progress and further develop a web 2 system?
The answers could be multiple, but I believe they can be summarized in the definition that web 3 application allows a natural extension of individual activities by leveraging what already exists at the web 2 level but with a completely different mode, not necessarily based on learning new systems, but that develops around the physicality of the subject.
This concept, which may seem obscure to some, can be further exemplified by saying that while today to execute a command in an application I necessarily have to equip myself with multiple hardware tools such as a keyboard, mouse, pointer, optical pen, and more, tomorrow, web 3, will allow me to do this simply using my hands and movements, thus transforming something that is essentially unnatural today, such as the extension of my activities through devices, into something extremely natural, such as using my limbs to activate processes, gather information or simply make purchases as I already do currently in reality.
We have developed several protocols, among which it is interesting to mention the OPM protocol; it is a protocol that allows, through an artificial intelligence with a non-deterministic algorithm with non-programmable output, to collect individual information through commercial sensors (which can be easily found in any mid-to-high-end smartphone) and replicate the subject’s physicality, movements, and salient characteristics on the Avatars that perform their functions within web 3 applications.
Starting from the first institutive law of the metaverse that identifies the metaverse on the internet, meaning that there is no alternative to the internet but that the metaverse itself is the internet and is unlimited in dimensioning as much as the internet is nowadays, it is not dependent on anyone as much as the internet should be nowadays.
What we are bringing into this new methodology of using computing and information technology may seem like a step back in a sense, that is, the ever-increasing and more pronounced presence of the individual within the applications through their avatar and the constant elimination of artificial automations capable of determining behavioral variations of the same.
An example above all could be that related to the use of social networks: in a web 3 application, the interaction of the moment is real and effective at the moment it is executed, and therefore moderation cannot exist as it does on social networks, that is, a BOT that manages comments, images, videos, and determines based on a superior logic whether or not they can be published.
Many at this point may wrinkle their nose and say that web 3 could become the paradise of haters and digital stalkers, but in reality, it is not because what is currently being discussed in international forums for the preparation of standards for the use of web 3, of which we are also part, is evaluating the uniqueness of the avatar through the usage protocol called biometric avatar, meaning that I will be the identifier of myself, so when I enter an environment, there will be no doubt that the subject who entered, albeit colored and fantastically dressed, will still be attributable and identifiable to the individual with a “determined” name and surname because the avatar is obviously an artistic expression of ourselves.
This will essentially give the user complete ownership of their digital identity and there will no longer be a third-party manager even at the level of official documentation, so we can imagine in the future seeing all these functions such as certified email (PEC) and “signing a document” simply with our presence within the signature application because all the data that identify our uniqueness (data that cannot be stolen because I would have to physically transport them elsewhere) will determine the individual’s uniqueness and will remain within the blockchain that will identify the entire structure of the individual and the entire history of the activities that they will carry out with their Avatar.
Recently, we conducted a six-month experiment involving approximately 300 workers who worked in VRO environments, and at the end of it, what we achieved was a per capita reduction calculation of CO2 emissions of about one ton per year and an improvement in the working conditions and serenity of all workers involved.
We are talking about an experiment carried out in Italy, so these are not data coming from some countries like the United States of America or China or others, but we are talking about Italy (people like us) where this experiment has given exceptional results that you can find in the abstracts reported below this article.
What I want to say in conclusion is that we should not fear the advent of this technology because, in reality, it is a technology that we have already known for years, we just haven’t used it. Let’s take courage and face this transition of data usage and existing technologies, and let’s try to regain control of computer science and not let computer science proceed to control us.
Summary of the VRO environmental impact experiment.
Sample analysis.
VRO/CO2QV 6Mth experiment for 2 days/week
Equivalent CO2 saved compared to the territory.
0.64 hectares of CO2 saved on the territory per person per year, giving back life to the planet.
280 hours per year of useless commuting time wasted per person, which equates to about 35 working days per year spent without any use other than mere waste of time.
9,300 km saved every year from useless commutes per person, and based on international research parameters, we know that every kilometer per vehicle consumes at least 130 grams per kilometer of CO2, so we can calculate based on the use of various means, not just individual ones, and each person working in VRO contributes to reducing the value of 12.1 tons of CO2 per person distributed in the air.
In Italy in 2021, 355 million tons of CO2 were recorded.
Out of 20 million active population in Italy, a reduction of CO2 emissions of 242,000,000 tons per year could be achieved.
Each active person could have an annual saving in transportation and related expenses of around 8,400 euros (weighted average), for a total annual saving of Italian families of 168 billion euros, which would justify a government incentive to purchase VRO-based visors and computer systems.
Using VRO would mean multiplying the state’s spending capacity in services useful to citizens.
As much as these data can be reanalyzed because the sample could vary depending on the geography of the place, people’s living conditions, and other variables, it is certain that this technology is the basis of a great opportunity for saving and improving people’s living conditions and the planet itself.
Market and Data
_old_Become an author
Wallet
