Royalties are a protocol feature, not a marketplace policy. When a marketplace like Blur or OpenSea can unilaterally decide fee structures, it creates a race to the bottom that destroys creator revenue and long-term ecosystem value.
the-creator-economy-web2-vs-web3
Blog
Why Royalty Enforcement Is a Core Protocol-Level Concern
A technical argument that on-chain royalties are not an optional app-layer feature, but a fundamental primitive for sustainable digital economies that must be enforced at the protocol level.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Introduction
Royalty enforcement is a protocol-level design problem because it dictates the fundamental economic alignment between creators and marketplaces.
On-chain enforcement requires consensus. The failure of the EIP-2981 standard demonstrates that a royalty flag without execution guarantees is meaningless. Protocols like Solana and Arbitrum have baked enforcement into their NFT primitives, proving it is a solvable technical constraint.
Evidence: After OpenSea optionalized royalties in 2022, creator earnings on major collections fell by over 50%. This directly correlates with the rise of zero-fee marketplaces exploiting the fee abstraction layer.
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Core Argument
Royalty enforcement is a protocol-level concern because it defines the fundamental economic incentives that determine whether a creator ecosystem lives or dies.
Royalties are protocol-level incentives. Treating them as an application-layer feature cedes control to extractive marketplaces like Blur, which optimize for trader profit at the expense of creator sustainability.
Enforcement requires state consensus. A marketplace cannot unilaterally enforce royalties; it requires a protocol-level rule (like EIP-2981) or a smart contract primitive (like Manifold's Royalty Registry) that is honored by the entire settlement layer.
Optional royalties fragment liquidity. The 'royalty-optional' model adopted by OpenSea creates a prisoner's dilemma, forcing all markets to race to the bottom on fees to avoid losing order flow, as seen in the 2023 NFT marketplace wars.
Evidence: After Blur's no-royalty policy, creator earnings on major collections fell over 90%. This proves that without protocol-enforced economic rules, parasitic actors will extract value until the underlying asset creation incentive collapses.
key-trends
PROTOCOL INTEGRITY
The Slippery Slope: How Optional Royalties Broke the Model
Marketplace-level enforcement created a race to the bottom, proving that creator economics cannot be a secondary feature.
01
The Problem: The Marketplace Prisoner's Dilemma
When Blur made royalties optional to gain market share, it forced competitors like OpenSea to follow suit or lose liquidity. This created a $1B+ annualized value leak from creators to traders and arbitrageurs, destroying the core economic promise of NFTs.
- Race to Zero: Marketplaces compete on trader fees, not creator support.
- Fragmented Policy: Each platform sets its own rules, creating a chaotic landscape.
- Value Extraction: Value flows to the least cooperative actor, not the content creator.
$1B+
Annual Leak
0%
Effective Rate
02
The Solution: Enforce at the Token Standard
The only viable fix is moving royalty logic from the marketplace contract to the NFT contract itself. Standards like ERC-2981 and ERC-721C (from Manifold) allow creators to set and enforce fees on-chain.
- Protocol-Level Policy: Royalty logic is immutable and travels with the asset.
- Marketplace-Agnostic: Any platform, from Blur to a new DEX, must comply.
- Creator Sovereignty: The creator's business model is protected by the token's code, not a platform's goodwill.
100%
Enforcement
ERC-721C
New Standard
03
The Consequence: Killing the Golden Goose
Optional royalties didn't just hurt artists; they broke the fundamental speculative premium of NFTs. If secondary sales don't fund new work, the entire ecosystem's content pipeline dries up. This is a protocol design failure, not a market inefficiency.
- Reduced Innovation: Professional creators exit, leaving only memes and scams.
- Collapsed Flywheel: No royalties → No new art → No collector demand.
- Systemic Risk: Undermines the value proposition of all on-chain digital assets.
-90%
Premium Erosion
Broken
Flywheel
04
The Precedent: Look at Solana
Metaplex's Core standard and Tensor's marketplace show that protocol-enforced royalties are viable. By baking fees into the asset's mint authority, they created a system where bypass is impossible without forking the chain.
- Proven Model: Solana's NFT volume thrives with enforced creator fees.
- Technical Feasibility: It's a solved problem; Ethereum's delay is political, not technical.
- Clear Incentives: Aligns marketplace success with ecosystem health.
Metaplex
Standard
Tensor
Adoption
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT
Protocol-Level vs. App-Level: A Comparative Autopsy
Comparing the architectural approaches to NFT creator royalty enforcement, analyzing their technical guarantees and market outcomes.
| Core Feature / Metric | Protocol-Level Enforcement (e.g., EIP-2981, Solana Core) | App-Level Enforcement (e.g., Blur, OpenSea) | Hybrid / Social Enforcement (e.g., Manifold, ZORA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Enforcement Guarantee | Hard-coded, non-optional transfer logic | Optional marketplace policy, can be bypassed | Creator-defined, relies on marketplace compliance |
Royalty Bypass Vulnerability | |||
Requires Centralized Trust | |||
Typical Royalty Compliance Rate |
| ~25-50% on aggregators | Varies by marketplace adoption |
Implementation Complexity for Developers | High (requires consensus upgrade) | Low (platform policy setting) | Medium (smart contract integration) |
Market Fragmentation Risk | Low (single standard) | High (per-marketplace rules) | Medium (standards exist but are optional) |
Example of Failure State | None; logic is immutable | Blur's optional royalties in 2022-23 | Marketplaces ignoring creator-set rules |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
First Principles: Why Protocol-Level Enforcement is the Only Viable Path
Royalty enforcement is a consensus and state transition problem that cannot be outsourced to application-layer logic.
Royalty enforcement is a consensus problem. Application-layer marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea compete on fees and liquidity, creating a prisoner's dilemma where bypassing creator fees is a rational, profit-maximizing strategy. This incentive misalignment makes off-chain agreements and honor-system enforcement structurally impossible.
The protocol defines property rights. Just as the ERC-20 standard defines token ownership, a complete NFT standard must encode creator economic rights into the asset's state transition logic. Without this, the asset's fundamental property rights are incomplete and unenforceable.
Market-level solutions are inherently fragile. Layer 2 solutions like EIP-2981 or marketplace blocklists are opt-in and can be forked or ignored by new aggregators. This mirrors the failure of off-chain DAO governance; only on-chain, protocol-native rules provide credible commitment.
Evidence: The 2022-2023 royalty wars saw creator payouts on major collections drop over 95% on optional-enforcement marketplaces, while protocol-enforced systems like Art Blocks maintained 100% collection rates, proving the technical model determines the economic outcome.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Libertarian Counter-Argument (And Why It's Wrong)
Protocol-agnostic royalty enforcement is not censorship; it is a fundamental economic safeguard for creator-owned networks.
The core argument is flawed. Libertarian critics claim that enforcing royalties at the protocol level, as seen with EIP-2981 or ERC-721C, is a form of censorship. This misunderstands the purpose of a protocol. A protocol defines the rules of a sovereign economic system; it is not a neutral pipe. Blur's marketplace and OpenSea's optional enforcement prove that without protocol-level rules, extractive actors will always defect.
Markets require defined property rights. The 'code is law' principle applies to the creator's economic rights as much as the token's ownership. Allowing secondary markets like LooksRare or Sudoswap to circumvent royalties is analogous to a stock exchange ignoring dividend payments. It breaks the financial model the asset was issued under, destroying long-term value for short-term liquidity gains.
Evidence from failed experiments. The 2022-2023 'race to zero' royalties, led by Blur's aggressive bidding, directly correlated with a collapse in primary sales and creator exit. Networks that treat royalties as optional, like early Solana NFT standards, become commoditized liquidity pools rather than sustainable creator economies. Protocol-level enforcement realigns incentives between creators, collectors, and marketplaces.
protocol-spotlight
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT
Builders on the Frontier: Who's Getting It Right?
Marketplaces that treat creator royalties as optional have destroyed a primary value proposition for NFTs. These protocols are rebuilding it at the base layer.
01
The Problem: The Marketplace Dilemma
Marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea compete on fees, making royalties a race to the bottom. This externalizes the cost onto creators who funded the ecosystem's initial hype.
- Result: Creator revenue from secondary sales dropped by ~90% post-optional-royalties.
- Consequence: Undermines the fundamental economic promise of digital ownership.
-90%
Creator Revenue
0%
Blur Default
02
The Solution: Protocol-Level Enforcement (Manifold)
Manifold's Royalty Registry and ERC-2981 standard move royalty logic from the marketplace contract to the NFT contract itself.
- Mechanism: Marketplaces must query the token contract for the fee recipient and amount.
- Result: Creators can blacklist non-compliant marketplaces, creating a powerful economic disincentive.
ERC-2981
Standard
100%
On-Chain
03
The Solution: Social Enforcement (Sound.xyz)
Sound.xyz bypasses the marketplace fight by making the NFT itself the marketplace via embedded on-chain swap curves.
- Mechanism: Tracks provenance and enforces royalties through its own smart contract, independent of external platforms.
- Result: Creates a self-contained economic loop where value accrual is guaranteed by the asset's architecture.
Direct
To Artist
0
Leakage
04
The Future: Fully On-Chain Ecosystems (Art Blocks)
Fully on-chain projects like Art Blocks Engine treat the contract as the sovereign source of truth for all interactions, including sales.
- Mechanism: Royalty logic is immutable and non-negotiable within the generative art contract's code.
- Result: Establishes a protocol-first model where the creator's rules are the network's rules, making bypass attempts technically impossible.
Immutable
Policy
$1B+
Volume
takeaways
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Royalties are not a social contract; they are a critical protocol-level mechanism for sustainable creator economies and network security.
01
The Problem: The Royalty-Free Vacuum
Marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea Pro defaulting to optional royalties created a race to the bottom, siphoning ~$350M+ annually from creators. This destroys the primary economic model for generative art and gaming projects, forcing them to rely on unsustainable token emissions or rug pulls.
~$350M
Annual Leakage
>90%
Non-Compliance
02
The Solution: On-Chain Enforcement
Protocols must enforce royalties at the smart contract level, not the marketplace level. This shifts the trust model from centralized operators to verifiable code. Key implementations include:\n- Transfer Hooks (e.g., Manifold, ERC-721C)\n- Creator-Controlled Marketplaces (e.g., Zora)\n- Soulbound Token Gating for privileged access
100%
Guarantee
L1 Security
Trust Model
03
The Consequence: Protocol Stickiness & Security
Enforced royalties create economic gravity. They bind creators, collectors, and liquidity to your chain or standard, increasing protocol stickiness and Total Value Locked (TVL). This transforms NFTs from speculative JPEGs into durable financial primitives with recurring revenue streams, directly funding continued development and ecosystem security.
10x+
Stickiness
Sustainable
Ecosystem
04
The Trade-Off: Liquidity vs. Sovereignty
Enforcement fragments liquidity by creating royalty-compliant and non-compliant pools, a direct trade-off explored by Ethereum vs. Solana approaches. Architects must decide: maximize short-term volume or long-term creator alignment. Solutions like Magic Eden's enforceable standard show a hybrid path, but require broad ecosystem buy-in.
Fragmented
Liquidity
Aligned
Incentives
05
The Vector: Fee Abstraction & Intents
The future is royalty abstraction. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap solve MEV and failed trades via intents; the same architecture can seamlessly bundle royalty payments. The buyer submits an intent, a solver finds the best route, and the protocol guarantees the creator's cut is paid before settlement, making compliance invisible.
0-Click
Compliance
Intent-Based
Architecture
06
The Precedent: ERC-20 Tax Tokens
Look at ERC-20 tokens with transfer taxes (e.g., PancakeSwap's CAKE). This is a solved problem at the token level. The failure to implement it for ERC-721 was a design oversight, not a technical limitation. New standards like ERC-721C (Creator Fees) and ERC-6956 (Asset-Bound Tokens) are correcting this, making royalties a native token property.
ERC-20
Precedent
ERC-721C
New Standard
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall