Royalty-Enforcing Curation, championed by platforms like Blur and Magic Eden (on select chains), excels at creator retention and premium positioning by mandating on-chain royalty payments. This model ensures creators like Yuga Labs receive consistent revenue, which incentivizes high-quality, long-term projects. For example, enforcing a 5% royalty on a Bored Ape sale secures ~$2,500 for the creator on a $50k sale, directly funding future development.
LABS
Comparisons
Royalty-Enforcing Curation vs Royalty-Optional Listings
A strategic analysis for platform architects and founders on the core policy decision of mandatory royalty enforcement versus optional royalty models, examining trade-offs in creator loyalty, platform liquidity, and long-term ecosystem health.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Defining Policy Decision for NFT Marketplaces
The choice between royalty-enforcing curation and royalty-optional listings is a foundational business model decision that dictates user experience, creator relations, and long-term viability.
Royalty-Optional Listings, the default on marketplaces like OpenSea (post-2022 policy shift) and Tensor, take a different approach by making royalties optional for buyers. This strategy results in lower effective sale prices and higher trading volume, as seen when OpenSea's trading volume spiked post-policy change, but at the trade-off of alienating creators and potentially degrading the premium nature of the NFT ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building a sustainable creator economy and attracting blue-chip projects, choose a royalty-enforcing model. If you prioritize maximizing trader liquidity and short-term volume in a competitive market, a royalty-optional approach may be necessary. The decision fundamentally shapes whether your marketplace is a gallery or a commodities exchange.
tldr-summary
Royalty-Enforcing Curation vs. Royalty-Optional Listings
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between curated, creator-protective marketplaces and open, fee-competitive platforms.
01
Royalty-Enforcing Curation (e.g., Magic Eden, Blur)
Pro: Guaranteed Creator Revenue: Enforces on-chain royalties via smart contract logic or marketplace policy. This matters for established collections (e.g., Bored Ape Yacht Club, Pudgy Penguins) where creator sustainability is a key value proposition.
Con: Higher Trader Friction: Buyers pay full creator fees, leading to higher effective costs. This can drive high-volume traders to seek cheaper alternatives, potentially fragmenting liquidity.
02
Royalty-Optional Listings (e.g., Tensor, OpenSea Pro)
Pro: Lower Transaction Costs: Optional or zero creator fees result in lower effective listing prices. This matters for high-frequency traders and arbitrage bots optimizing for thin margins on platforms like Tensor.
Con: Creator Revenue Erosion: Relies on voluntary payments, leading to significant royalty non-compliance (often >80% on optional platforms). This harms emerging artists and PFP projects dependent on secondary sales for roadmap funding.
03
Choose Royalty Enforcement If...
You are a protocol architect building for brand-aligned ecosystems where creator partnerships are critical (e.g., gaming assets, music NFTs). Your primary KPI is creator retention and loyalty, not just transaction volume. Platforms like Magic Eden's Solana protocol demonstrate this model.
04
Choose Royalty-Optional If...
You are a VP of Engineering prioritizing user acquisition and liquidity depth above all else. Your target user is a cost-sensitive, professional trader using tools like Tensor's Sweep or OpenSea Pro's aggregator. The goal is maximal market share and volume, accepting the trade-off with creator economics.
ROYALTY ENFORCEMENT HEAD-TO-HEAD
Feature and Policy Comparison Matrix
Direct comparison of marketplace policies for creator monetization.
| Metric / Policy | Royalty-Enforcing Curation (e.g., Magic Eden, Tensor) | Royalty-Optional Listings (e.g., OpenSea, Blur) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Royalty Enforcement | Protocol-level, on-chain | Platform policy, off-chain |
Default Creator Fee Respect | ||
Secondary Sales Revenue for Creators | Guaranteed (e.g., 5-10%) | Optional / Often 0% |
Market Share (NFT Volume Q1 2024) | ~35% | ~65% |
Trader Incentive Model | Lower platform fees | Token rewards, zero fees |
Key Standard Support | Solana Metaplex, SPL | ERC-721, ERC-1155 |
Primary Use Case | Creator-first ecosystems, high-value art | High-frequency trading, liquidity aggregation |
pros-cons-a
Royalty-Enforcing vs. Royalty-Optional
Royalty-Enforcing Curation: Strategic Advantages and Trade-offs
A data-driven comparison for CTOs and Protocol Architects choosing a marketplace strategy. Evaluate based on creator sustainability, platform liquidity, and long-term ecosystem alignment.
01
Royalty-Enforcing: Creator Sustainability
Guaranteed revenue for creators: Enforces on-chain royalties (e.g., 5-10%) via protocol-level logic (like OpenSea's Operator Filter or Blur's Blend). This matters for high-value collections (e.g., Bored Ape Yacht Club, Pudgy Penguins) where creator royalties fund ongoing development and community rewards, directly impacting project longevity and secondary market value.
>90%
Royalty Compliance
02
Royalty-Enforcing: Ecosystem Alignment
Attracts premium, long-term projects: Curated marketplaces (e.g., OpenSea Pro, LooksRare v2) signal alignment with creator economies. This matters for building a trusted platform brand and securing exclusive drops from top-tier NFT projects, which drives higher Average Sale Prices (ASP) and sticky user bases.
$1.2B+
TVL in Creator-First Ecosystems
03
Royalty-Optional: Trader Liquidity & Volume
Maximizes short-term trading activity: By bypassing creator fees (0% optional royalties), platforms like Blur and Sudoswap attract high-frequency traders and arbitrage bots. This matters for liquidity-sensitive assets and new collections where lower transaction costs can catalyze initial volume and price discovery.
70%+
NFT Market Volume Share
04
Royalty-Optional: Protocol Agnosticism
Flexibility across chains and standards: Does not rely on specific, often fragmented royalty enforcement standards (EIP-2981, Operator Filter). This matters for multi-chain deployments and experimental asset types (e.g., ERC-404, ERC-721C) where enforcement is technically challenging or not yet standardized.
5+
Major Chains Supported
pros-cons-b
A Data-Driven Comparison
Royalty-Optional Listings: Strategic Advantages and Trade-offs
Choosing between royalty-enforcing curation and optional listings is a foundational protocol decision. This analysis breaks down the strategic trade-offs for creators, collectors, and marketplaces.
01
Royalty-Enforcing Curation: Pros
Guaranteed Creator Revenue: Enforced royalties via smart contracts (e.g., Manifold's Royalty Registry, EIP-2981) ensure creators like Yuga Labs receive 5-10% on all secondary sales. This matters for funding sustainable projects and long-term roadmaps.
Higher-Quality Curation: Marketplaces like Foundation and SuperRare use enforcement to attract premium artists, creating a high-signal environment for collectors.
Protocol-Level Alignment: Standards like EIP-2981 and ERC-721C (Creator Fees) build a composable, creator-first ecosystem, reducing fragmentation.
02
Royalty-Enforcing Curation: Cons
Lower Liquidity & Volume: Enforcement can push traders to optional platforms. Blur's dominance (>70% NFT market share) was built on optional royalties, demonstrating a significant liquidity advantage.
Higher Friction for Traders: Additional fees reduce trader margins, potentially stifling secondary market activity and collection growth.
Complex Implementation & Enforcement: Requires ongoing technical overhead to manage standards (EIP-2981, ERC-721C) and police marketplace compliance across aggregators like Gem and Blur Aggregator.
03
Royalty-Optional Listings: Pros
Maximized Trader Liquidity: By minimizing fees, platforms like Blur and Tensor achieve higher trading volumes and deeper liquidity pools. This matters for high-frequency traders and collection floor price stability.
Marketplace Flexibility: Allows platforms to compete on fees and user experience, driving innovation. OpenSea's 'Pro' tier and Magic Eden's optional model on Solana adapt to market demands.
Lower Barrier to Entry: Reduced costs attract new participants to the NFT space, potentially expanding the total addressable market.
04
Royalty-Optional Listings: Cons
Erodes Creator Economics: Optional models can reduce creator revenue by >50%, jeopardizing project sustainability. This forces creators to rely on primary sales or alternative monetization.
Race-to-the-Bottom Dynamics: Can commoditize marketplaces, prioritizing volume over curation and potentially lowering asset quality over time.
Fragmented Ecosystem Value: Diverges from the Web3 ethos of creator ownership, potentially alienating top artists and shifting value extraction to traders and marketplaces alone.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?
Royalty-Enforcing Curation for Creators
Verdict: Essential for sustainable revenue. Strengths: Guarantees creator revenue via on-chain enforcement mechanisms (e.g., OpenSea's Operator Filter, Manifold's Royalty Registry). Protects long-term project viability by ensuring secondary sales fund development and community rewards. Aligns with premium, artist-focused platforms like Art Blocks and Foundation. Key Protocols: Manifold Royalty Registry, EIP-2981, OpenSea Operator Filter.
Royalty-Optional Listings for Creators
Verdict: High-risk for long-term projects. Strengths: None for the creator. This model, championed by marketplaces like Blur and Magic Eden (Solana), removes guaranteed income, shifting value entirely to traders and speculators. May only be viable for ultra-high-volume, fee-generating collections where creator revenue is secondary to trading liquidity.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between creator-centric curation and marketplace-optional models.
Royalty-Enforcing Curation excels at guaranteeing creator revenue and fostering a premium ecosystem. By mandating royalties on secondary sales through smart contract logic (e.g., Manifold's Royalty Registry or EIP-2981), these platforms ensure sustainable creator economics. For example, platforms like Foundation and SuperRare have maintained effective royalty rates above 5-10%, directly contributing to over $100M in cumulative creator earnings. This model attracts high-value artists and collectors seeking long-term value and provenance.
Royalty-Optional Listings take a different approach by prioritizing market liquidity and trader flexibility. Marketplaces like Blur and OpenSea (on certain chains) allow buyers to set optional royalties, which often results in lower effective fees and higher trading volumes. This strategy leads to a trade-off: while it can boost short-term activity and TVL (Blur's peak daily volume exceeded $300M), it risks alienating creators and commoditizing assets, potentially undermining the long-term health of the creator base.
The key trade-off is between ecosystem sustainability and trader-centric liquidity. If your protocol's priority is building a creator-first economy with strong artist retention and premium branding, choose a royalty-enforcing model integrated with standards like EIP-2981. If you are launching a high-frequency trading platform where volume, low fees, and composability with DeFi are paramount, a royalty-optional approach may be the necessary strategic concession.
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