Royalty Enforcement on Ethereum L1 excels at providing immutable, protocol-level guarantees because its security is derived from the world's largest decentralized validator set. For example, platforms like OpenSea's Seaport 1.5 and Blur implement royalty logic directly in the smart contract, making bypassing fees on-chain prohibitively expensive and visible. This approach leverages Ethereum's ~$50B Total Value Locked (TVL) and its unparalleled resistance to censorship, ensuring creator payouts are as secure as the underlying asset.
LABS
Comparisons
Royalty Enforcement on L1 vs Royalty Enforcement on L2
A technical comparison for decision-makers analyzing the trade-offs between the security and finality of Layer 1 enforcement and the cost-efficiency and speed of Layer 2 solutions for NFT marketplaces.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-off for NFT Protocols
Choosing where to enforce NFT royalties pits the absolute security of Ethereum L1 against the cost-efficiency and programmability of L2s.
Royalty Enforcement on Ethereum L2s (like Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) takes a different approach by prioritizing low-cost transactions and advanced smart contract logic. This results in a trade-off: while inheriting Ethereum's security, enforcement often relies more on market-level policy (e.g., Blast L2's mandatory creator fees) or sophisticated on-chain enforcement modules that would be too gas-intensive on L1. The benefit is clear: minting and trading fees can be 90-99% lower, enabling new micro-transaction and gamified royalty models.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security and industry-wide norm-setting for blue-chip collections, choose L1 enforcement. If you prioritize user experience, low fees, and experimenting with dynamic or programmable royalty schemes for high-volume applications, choose L2 enforcement. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you value absolute guarantee or operational flexibility as your primary success metric.
tldr-summary
Royalty Enforcement on L1 vs L2
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core trade-offs between enforcing creator royalties on base-layer blockchains versus layer-2 scaling solutions.
01
L1: Uncompromising Security & Finality
Native protocol-level enforcement: Royalty logic is embedded in the NFT smart contract (e.g., ERC-2981) and validated by every node on the L1 (Ethereum, Solana). This provides cryptographic guarantees and is immune to marketplace policy changes. This matters for high-value collections and institutional assets where immutable creator rights are non-negotiable.
02
L1: Universal Market Coverage
Enforcement is chain-native: Any marketplace or dApp built on the L1 must respect the on-chain royalty logic. This eliminates fragmentation and prevents royalty bypass on secondary sales. This matters for creators who need guaranteed revenue across all trading venues without relying on individual platform compliance.
03
L2: Radically Lower Transaction Costs
Sub-cent fee environment: Executing complex royalty logic (e.g., split payments, dynamic fees) costs a fraction of L1 gas fees. On chains like Arbitrum, Optimism, or Base, fees are often <$0.01. This matters for high-volume, low-margin NFT ecosystems (e.g., gaming, social PFPs) where L1 fees would make royalties economically unviable.
04
L2: Flexible & Upgradable Models
Can leverage L2-specific primitives: Solutions can use custom precompiles, sequencer-level rules (like Arbitrum Stylus), or appchain governance (like a zkSync Hyperchain) to implement sophisticated royalty models. This matters for protocols needing experimental features like time-decaying royalties or real-time revenue sharing that are impractical on conservative L1s.
05
L1: Higher Friction for Users
Prohibitive gas costs for small trades: A $20 NFT sale on Ethereum Mainnet could incur $10+ in gas, disincentivizing secondary market activity and effectively killing royalties for low-value assets. This matters for mass-adoption consumer apps where user experience and cost are primary concerns.
06
L2: Fragmented Enforcement Risk
Relies on L2 ecosystem coordination: Without a universal standard adopted by all bridges and marketplaces, users can bypass fees by bridging assets to a non-compliant L2 or L1. This matters for creators who are risk-averse to technical loopholes and require the strongest possible enforcement guarantees.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: L1 vs L2 Royalty Enforcement
Direct comparison of enforcement mechanisms, costs, and flexibility for creator royalties.
| Metric | Royalty Enforcement on L1 (e.g., Ethereum) | Royalty Enforcement on L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Enforcement Mechanism | On-chain logic (e.g., EIP-2981) | Protocol-level policy (e.g., creator-set fees) |
Marketplace Bypass Risk | High (Optional compliance) | Low (Enforced at sequencer/contract level) |
Avg. Royalty Enforcement Cost | $10 - $50+ | < $0.01 |
Implementation Flexibility | High (Custom smart contracts) | Moderate (Governed by L2 ruleset) |
Time to Update Rules | Slow (Contract redeploy) | Fast (Protocol upgrade) |
Major Adopters | OpenSea (optional), Blur | Arbitrum NFT, Zora Network |
pros-cons-a
L1 vs L2 Trade-offs
Pros and Cons: Royalty Enforcement on Layer 1
A technical breakdown of the core strengths and weaknesses for enforcing creator royalties at the base layer versus an execution layer.
01
L1 Enforcement: Unbreakable Guarantee
Protocol-level enforcement: Royalties are hardcoded into the NFT smart contract standard (e.g., ERC-2981) and validated by the base layer consensus. This creates a non-optional fee on every transfer, making it impossible for marketplaces to bypass without forking the chain. This matters for high-value art and IP-heavy collections where revenue integrity is non-negotiable.
02
L1 Enforcement: Universal Settlement
Single source of truth: All transactions, including royalty payments, settle on a globally consistent state (e.g., Ethereum mainnet). This eliminates cross-layer bridging complexity and provides atomic settlement guarantees. This matters for financial reporting, auditing, and protocol composability where a unified ledger is critical.
03
L1 Enforcement: Cost & Latency Penalty
High operational cost: Every royalty payment and transfer incurs base layer gas fees (e.g., $5-$50+ on Ethereum during congestion). This makes micro-transactions and high-frequency trading prohibitive. This is a critical weakness for gaming assets, social badges, or any high-velocity NFT economy.
04
L1 Enforcement: Inflexible Upgrades
Slow iteration speed: Changing royalty logic or parameters requires migrating to a new contract or executing a complex, high-risk upgrade. This hinders rapid experimentation with new models (e.g., dynamic, time-based royalties). This matters for protocols and creators who need to adapt quickly to market changes.
05
L2 Enforcement: Low-Cost Execution
Sub-cent transaction fees: Royalty logic executes on high-throughput L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, or zkSync, reducing fees by 10-100x vs Ethereum mainnet. This enables sustainable royalty models for low-value assets and removes friction for users. This matters for mass-adoption use cases like ticketing and in-game items.
06
L2 Enforcement: Marketplace-Led Flexibility
Customizable policy layer: Marketplaces (e.g., Blur on Arbitrum) can implement and update royalty logic at the application level via allowlists and social enforcement. This allows for rapid A/B testing of new incentive structures. The trade-off is reliance on centralized policy enforcers, which matters for communities prioritizing growth and liquidity over absolute decentralization.
pros-cons-b
L1 vs L2 Trade-offs
Pros and Cons: Royalty Enforcement on Layer 2
Key architectural and economic trade-offs for protocol architects choosing where to enforce creator royalties.
01
L1 (Ethereum) Pros
Maximum Security & Guarantees: Royalty logic is secured by Ethereum's base layer consensus (~$50B+ in stake). Smart contracts like EIP-2981 provide immutable, on-chain enforcement that cannot be bypassed by marketplaces.
Universal Standardization: Standards like EIP-2981 and EIP-4910 are natively supported, creating a predictable environment for creators and developers across major platforms (OpenSea, Blur).
$50B+
Security Stake
2
Core EIP Standards
02
L1 (Ethereum) Cons
High Creator & User Friction: Royalty payments incur mainnet gas fees ($5-$50+ per transaction), significantly reducing net proceeds for creators and increasing costs for collectors.
Limited Technical Flexibility: Enforcement is binary and rigid. Adapting to new business models (e.g., dynamic royalties, subscriptions) requires costly contract upgrades and widespread marketplace re-integration.
$5-$50+
Tx Fee Cost
03
L2 (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) Pros
Radically Lower Cost & Friction: Sub-cent transaction fees enable micro-royalty models and seamless user experiences without gas economics destroying value. This unlocks new use cases like fractional trading and high-frequency NFT utility.
Advanced Programmable Enforcement: L2s allow for sophisticated, custom royalty logic (e.g., time-decaying fees, holder-based rewards) built directly into the chain's sequencer or via custom precompiles, which is impossible on L1.
< $0.01
Avg. Tx Fee
04
L2 (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) Cons
Fragmented Standardization & Security: No universal L2 royalty standard exists. Enforcement relies on individual chain policies (e.g., Optimism's creator-owned logic) or validator cooperation, introducing centralization risk and interoperability headaches.
Reduced Marketplace Leverage: Major marketplaces control significant volume and may choose L2s with weaker enforcement. Creators are at the mercy of the L2's chosen policy, which can change via governance.
Variable
Enforcement Policy
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose L1 vs L2
L1 (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) for NFT Royalties
Verdict: Opt for Maximum Enforceability. Strengths: On-chain, protocol-level enforcement is the gold standard. Smart contracts can irrevocably encode royalty logic, making bypasses technically impossible without a hard fork. This is critical for high-value art and collectibles where creator revenue is non-negotiable. Standards like EIP-2981 provide a consistent interface. The security and finality of the base layer ensure the rules are as immutable as the assets themselves. Trade-offs: Higher minting and secondary sale gas fees can be prohibitive for high-volume or low-price collections. Enforcement relies on marketplace compliance, but the technical barrier to bypass is high.
L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Base) for NFT Royalties
Verdict: Choose for Volume & Lower Friction. Strengths: Drastically lower fees enable novel, high-frequency NFT use cases (e.g., gaming items, social badges) while still benefiting from Ethereum's security. Most major L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) enforce creator-set fees at the protocol level by default, inheriting L1's strong stance. This creates a scalable, low-cost environment that still respects creator economics. Trade-offs: Enforcement is ultimately a policy of the L2's sequencer/validators. While currently aligned with creators, this is a more centralized point of control than L1's immutable smart contracts. Always verify the specific L2's royalty policy.
L1 VS L2
Technical Deep Dive: Enforcement Mechanisms
A technical comparison of how royalty enforcement is implemented and its effectiveness across different blockchain layers, focusing on architectural trade-offs.
Enforcement is fundamentally stronger on L1 blockchains. L1s like Ethereum enforce royalties at the protocol level through smart contract logic, making them mandatory and immutable. On L2s, enforcement is a policy decision of the sequencer or depends on marketplace cooperation, creating potential weak points. For example, a sequencer on an L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism could theoretically censor transactions that don't comply with royalties, but this is not a protocol guarantee.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing between L1 and L2 for royalty enforcement is a strategic decision balancing finality, cost, and ecosystem maturity.
Royalty Enforcement on L1 excels at providing unquestionable finality and security because it leverages the base layer's full validator set and consensus mechanism. For example, enforcing royalties via a smart contract on Ethereum Mainnet or Solana ensures the rules are immutable and universally verifiable, protecting creators from downstream manipulation. This is the gold standard for high-value collections like Yuga Labs' Otherside, where the integrity of the financial model is paramount. However, this comes with the trade-off of higher gas fees, which can be prohibitive for high-volume, low-margin trading.
Royalty Enforcement on L2 takes a different approach by optimizing for cost and user experience. By settling transactions on a scalable layer like Arbitrum, Optimism, or Base, protocols can implement the same smart contract logic for a fraction of the cost—often less than $0.01 per transaction. This results in the trade-off of sovereignty; the L2's sequencer and potential upgrade keys introduce a marginal trust assumption compared to the underlying L1. Furthermore, ecosystem tooling and marketplace adoption (e.g., Blur, OpenSea) on specific L2s can be more fragmented.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, finality, and working within a mature, established NFT ecosystem (e.g., Ethereum with ~$4B in NFT volume), choose L1 enforcement. If you prioritize low transaction costs, high throughput for micro-transactions, and are building a new application-specific ecosystem, choose L2 enforcement. For most projects launching today, the cost-benefit analysis strongly favors starting on an L2, with the option to leverage the L1's security for critical settlement or dispute resolution via cross-chain messaging.
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