Comparison of open and closed metaverse systems
This article is available in French.
Open metaverse (Decentraland) and closed metaverse (Meta Horizon Worlds) compared specifically.
Governance in Open metaverse
How decisions about the platform are made in Decentraland (DAO-led governance).
Who decides?
Primarily the community, via Decentraland’s DAO (decentralized autonomous organization). Voting power is tied to on-chain assets (e.g., MANA, LAND, Names). (decentraland.org)
How decisions are made (mechanism)
- Proposals + voting
Community members submit proposals and vote through Decentraland’s governance system; voting is designed to be gasless/off-chain (Snapshot/IPFS) for accessibility. (docs.decentraland.org) - Binding vs non-binding
Some votes are “signaling” (community sentiment), while others are binding actions that—if approved—trigger changes such as smart-contract updates or DAO-controlled records/contracts. (docs.decentraland.org) - Execution layer (committee)
Approved binding outcomes are typically enacted on-chain via a multi-sig controlled by a “DAO Committee,” meaning execution is delegated even if the decision is community-made. (docs.decentraland.org)
Practical implications
Governance is comparatively transparent and participatory (proposals/votes/results are recorded), but influence can concentrate among large holders because voting power is asset-weighted. (ScholarSpace)
Governance in Closed metaverse
How decisions about the platform are made in Meta Horizon Worlds (company-led governance).
Who decides?
Meta (the company)—through its management and internal product/policy teams, under corporate governance structures (board + executives). Users don’t get formal voting rights over platform rules or roadmap. (Meta)
How decisions are made (mechanism)
- Top-down product governance
Meta sets product direction (features, tooling, availability) and can change course as business priorities evolve; creators/community feedback may influence decisions, but it’s advisory rather than binding. (Corporate governance resides with board/management.) (Meta) - Rule-setting + enforcement
Meta defines behavioral and safety rules and enforces them through restriction/suspension/disablement processes when users violate policies. (About Facebook) - Limited accountability hooks
Meta publishes transparency reporting on enforcement (at least at the broader platform-policy level) and has processes like reporting and (in some cases) appeals—but these remain Meta-controlled, not community-governed. (About Facebook)
Practical implications
Governance is centralized: decisions can be faster and more consistent with company strategy, but users have less formal power and must rely on Meta’s policy/process choices for accountability.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of economic models for an open metaverse (Decentraland) and a closed metaverse (Meta Horizon Worlds), focusing on how each platform generates revenue and how participants are rewarded.
Economic Models in Open metaverse
How the platform generates revenue
Decentraland itself does not operate like a traditional company extracting profits. Instead, value flows through the ecosystem:
- Token economy (MANA)
- MANA is used for transactions (land, wearables, names, services).
- When certain assets are created or registered, MANA may be burned, indirectly supporting token value rather than generating corporate revenue.
- Primary land sales (historical)
Initial LAND auctions generated funds for ecosystem development (now largely complete). - Marketplace fees Small fees on secondary-market transactions (e.g., wearables) go to the DAO treasury, not a private company.
Revenue is collectivized and managed by the DAO rather than captured by a firm.
How participants are rewarded
Participants can earn value in multiple, permissionless ways:
- Creators & builders
- Sell wearables, experiences, event tickets, services
- Monetize LAND via rentals, advertising, brand activations
- LAND owners
- Capture scarcity-driven value as LAND appreciates
- Earn passive income from leasing or hosting events
- Community contributors
Grants from the DAO treasury for development, events, or tools - Speculators / users
Potential appreciation of MANA and LAND
Rewards are market-driven and ownership-based: users directly own assets and keep most of the upside.
Economic incentives
- Strong incentives for early adoption and entrepreneurship
- High upside, but high volatility
- Income is not guaranteed; depends on demand and ecosystem health
Economic Models in Closed metaverse
How the platform generates revenue
Horizon Worlds follows a platform-as-a-service model typical of Big Tech:
- Platform fees on transactions
Meta takes a large cut from sales of virtual goods and experiences (similar to app stores). - Advertising (long-term strategy)
Monetization through branded experiences, sponsored spaces, or immersive ads. - Hardware ecosystem
Indirect revenue via sales of Meta Quest headsets, which Horizon Worlds helps justify. - Data & ecosystem lock-in
User engagement feeds Meta’s broader ecosystem value (even if Horizon Worlds itself is not yet highly profitable).
Revenue is centralized and captured by Meta.
How participants are rewarded
Participants earn value within Meta’s rules:
- Creators
- Sell virtual items or experiences
- Participate in creator incentive programs and bonuses set by Meta
- Users may earn cosmetic items, status, or limited virtual currency
- No true ownership
- Assets cannot be freely traded outside Meta’s ecosystem
- Meta can change monetization terms or revoke access
Rewards are permissioned, revocable, and platform-dependent.
Economic incentives (summary)
- Lower risk for creators (clear rules, stable infrastructure)
- Lower upside (high platform fees, no asset appreciation)
- Economic power remains with the platform owner
Direct comparison
| Dimension | Decentraland (Open) | Horizon Worlds (Closed) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue capture | DAO / ecosystem | Meta (company) |
| Core currency | MANA (crypto) | Proprietary virtual currencies |
| Asset ownership | Users truly own assets (NFTs) | Assets licensed, not owned |
| Creator monetization | Market-based, peer-to-peer | Platform-controlled |
| Platform fees | Relatively low, DAO-governed | High, Meta-defined |
| Economic upside | High but volatile | Lower but more predictable |
| Rule changes | Via DAO governance | Unilateral (Meta decision) |
Below is a focused comparison of interoperability for an open metaverse (Decentraland) and a closed metaverse (Meta Horizon Worlds)—that is, how well each platform connects with other systems, platforms, and ecosystems.
Interoperability on Open Metaverse
Core interoperability model
Decentraland is built on open blockchain standards, which makes interoperability a foundational design principle, not an add-on.
How it connects with other systems
- Asset interoperability
- Assets (LAND, wearables, names) are NFTs on public blockchains.
- They can be:
- Viewed, traded, or stored in external wallets (e.g., MetaMask)
- Listed on third-party marketplaces
- Potentially reused in other compatible virtual worlds or applications
- Ownership exists outside Decentraland’s servers.
- Economic interoperability
- Uses a public cryptocurrency (MANA).
- MANA integrates with:
- DeFi protocols
- Exchanges
- External payment and custody tools
- Users can move value in and out freely without platform permission.
- Identity interoperability
- Identity is tied to blockchain wallets, not Decentraland accounts.
- The same wallet can represent the user across:
- Other Web3 metaverses
- DAO governance platforms
- NFT communities
- Enables “portable reputation” in principle (even if still emerging in practice).
- Developer interoperability
- Open SDKs and APIs
- Experiences can integrate:
- External Web3 services (Oracles, NFTs, DeFi hooks)
- Web apps and services via standard web technologies
Limits
- True cross-world use of assets depends on other platforms choosing compatibility.
- Performance, UX, and moderation are harder to standardize across open systems.
Summary: Decentraland is interoperable by default at the asset, value, and identity layers, even if cross-metaverse experiences are still evolving.
Interoperability on Closed Metaverse
Core interoperability model
Horizon Worlds prioritizes vertical integration within Meta’s ecosystem rather than openness.
How it connects with other systems
- Asset interoperability
- Virtual items are non-transferable outside Meta’s platforms
- Assets cannot:
- Be exported
- Be used in non-Meta virtual worlds
- Be traded on external marketplaces
- Items are licenses, not owned property
- Economic interoperability
- Uses proprietary virtual currencies
- No direct integration with:
- Cryptocurrencies
- External payment rails beyond Meta-approved systems
- Value is trapped inside the platform
- Identity interoperability
- Identity is tied to a Meta account
- Some interoperability exists within Meta products (Facebook, Instagram, Quest)
- No portable identity across independent virtual worlds
- Developer interoperability
- Developers must use Meta’s tools and APIs
- External integrations are:
- Limited
- Permissioned
- Subject to policy changes
- No ability to deploy experiences that meaningfully connect Horizon Worlds to open ecosystems
Limits (by design)
- Meta restricts interoperability to:
- Maintain control
- Ensure safety and compliance
- Protect revenue streams
Summary: Horizon Worlds is interoperable only inside Meta’s walled garden.
Direct comparison
| Dimension | Decentraland (Open) | Horizon Worlds (Closed) |
|---|---|---|
| Asset portability | High (NFTs, external wallets) | None (platform-locked) |
| Currency interoperability | High (public crypto) | Very low (proprietary) |
| Identity portability | Wallet-based, cross-platform | Meta account only |
| External marketplaces | Yes | No |
| Cross-metaverse potential | Designed for it | Explicitly restricted |
| Control over integrations | Community / open standards | Meta |
Below is a comparison of user autonomy between an open metaverse (Decentraland) and a closed metaverse (Meta Horizon Worlds) focusing on how much freedom users have to create, interact, and control their experiences.
User Autonomy in Open Metaverse
Freedom to create
- Permissionless creation
Anyone can build experiences, mint wearables, or develop services without asking a central authority. - Tooling flexibility
Users can create with Decentraland’s SDK, standard web technologies, and external Web3 tools. - No centralized curation
There is no “app approval” process comparable to an app store. Implication
Creativity is limited mainly by technical skill and market demand, not by platform permission.
Freedom to interact
- Open social spaces
Users can organize events, communities, and economies independently. - Custom rules
Landowners can define interaction rules within their parcels (games, access control, monetization). - Cross-ecosystem interaction
Users interact via wallets that also function in other Web3 ecosystems.
Implication: Social and economic interactions are user-defined, not centrally scripted.
Control over assets and identity
- True ownership
Users own LAND, wearables, and tokens via their wallets. - Portability
Assets and identity exist independently of Decentraland and can persist even if the platform changes. - Exit rights
Users can leave the platform while retaining assets and value.
Implication: Users have sovereignty—the platform cannot easily revoke or alter ownership.
Constraints on autonomy
- Technical complexity
- Market risk and volatility
- Limited content moderation consistency
Summary: Decentraland maximizes autonomy, even at the cost of UX simplicity and centralized safeguards.
User Autonomy in Closed Metaverse
Freedom to create
- Permissioned creation
Users can create worlds and items only using Meta-approved tools. - Platform rules
Content must comply with Meta’s policies, formats, and monetization rules. - No code-level freedom
Deep customization or external integrations are restricted.
Implication: Creation is easier, but tightly bounded by platform design.
Freedom to interact
- Curated social environments
Interactions are shaped by Meta’s safety systems and moderation tools. - Restricted experimentation
Certain social, economic, or governance experiments are disallowed. - No external interoperability
Interactions remain inside Meta’s ecosystem.
Implication: Interaction freedom is managed, prioritizing safety and predictability.
Control over assets and identity
- No true ownership
Virtual items are licenses tied to a Meta account. - Revocability
Access to content or assets can be suspended or removed by Meta. - Identity lock-in
Identity is not portable outside Meta platforms.
Implication: Users are participants, not sovereign owners.
Benefits of reduced autonomy
- Lower technical barrier
- More consistent moderation
- More predictable user experience
Summary: Horizon Worlds optimizes for accessibility and safety, sacrificing user control and independence.
Direct comparison
| Dimension | Decentraland (Open) | Horizon Worlds (Closed) |
|---|---|---|
| Creation freedom | Permissionless | Platform-approved |
| Interaction rules | User-defined | Platform-defined |
| Asset ownership | User-owned (NFTs) | Licensed, revocable |
| Identity control | Wallet-based, portable | Meta account |
| Ability to exit | Keep assets & identity | Lose access/value |
| Platform control | Minimal | Extensive |
Conclusion
Across governance, economic models, interoperability, and user autonomy, a clear divide emerges between open and closed metaverses.
Open metaverses like Decentraland emphasize decentralization, user ownership, and interoperability, giving participants significant control and economic upside but also exposing them to complexity and risk.
Closed metaverses like Meta Horizon Worlds prioritize centralized control, ease of use, and safety, offering more predictable experiences at the cost of limited ownership, interoperability, and autonomy.
Ultimately, the choice between these models reflects a trade-off between sovereignty and openness versus convenience and control, shaping how power, value, and creativity are distributed in the metaverse.