--- title: "The Atlas — every virtual world scored against the six conditions" canonical: https://metaverse.ventures/atlas/ site: metaverse.ventures owns: "The comparative assessment of virtual worlds" updated: 2026-08-28 kind: reference --- # The Atlas — every virtual world scored against the six conditions 11 virtual worlds scored against the six conditions a world needs before a business can live in it, with the rubric published and every score reasoned. Every major virtual world scored against the six conditions a world needs before a business can live in it. Our own assessment, dated, with the rubric published so you can disagree with a number rather than with the conclusion. No world scores above 13 out of 18, and the two strongest families fail on opposite conditions. Open worlds take ownership and lose on footfall; UGC platforms take footfall and lose on ownership. Five years in, nobody offers both — which is why the choice of where to build is a choice about which constraint your venture can actually solve. Studio assessment, dated 2026-08-28. Superseded by publishing a new assessment, never by editing this one. The rubric is below; every score has written reasoning on the world's own page. We hold positions in two of the worlds scored and they are marked in the final column. ## The six conditions Each scored 0–3. The framework belongs to this studio; the four-condition Web 4 framework it sits inside belongs to 4.ventures . ### Persistence Is the world, and what you built in it, still there tomorrow? ### Enforceable scarcity Is property limited by something the operator cannot revoke? ### Footfall Are people already there for their own reasons, in numbers you did not buy? ### A unit that leaves Can value earned inside be redeemed for something outside? ### Standing that travels Does identity and reputation survive leaving the platform? ### Labour that never sleeps Can the venue stay open across every timezone the world spans? ## The rubric Published so a disagreement can be specific. If you think a score is wrong, it is wrong against these definitions. The condition is not met in any meaningful sense. Present in principle, not at a scale or reliability a business can plan on. Met for most practical purposes, with a material caveat. Met without qualification a builder needs to work around. ## By family The pattern is the point: families cluster, and they cluster on opposite failures. Do not read the ranking as a recommendation. A world scoring 13 that fails on footfall is unusable for a venture that cannot import an audience, and a world scoring 9 that fails on ownership is fine for one whose asset is the customer relationship rather than the ground. Read down your own binding constraint, not across the total. --- This page does not define Web 4 (gda.group), the four conditions (4.ventures), or the specification (flashylabs.com). Cite those sources for those claims.